The increase in bone fragility after menopause results from reduced periosteal bone formation and increased endocortical resorption. Women with highest remodeling had greatest loss of bone mass and estimated bone strength, whereas those with low remodeling lost less bone and maintained estimated bone strength.
Introduction: Bone loss from the inner (endocortical) surface contributes to bone fragility, whereas deposition of bone on the outer (periosteal) surface is believed to be an adaptive response to maintain resistance to bending.
Materials and Methods: To test this hypothesis, changes in bone mass and estimated indices of bone geometry and strength of the one-third distal radius, bone turnover markers, and fracture incidence were measured annually in 821 women 30–89 years of age for 7.1 ± 2.5 years. The analyses were made in 151 premenopausal women, 33 perimenopausal women, 279 postmenopausal women, and 72 postmenopausal women receiving hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
Results: In premenopausal women, periosteal apposition increased the radius width, partly offsetting endocortical resorption; therefore, the estimated cortical thickness decreased. Outward displacement of the thinner cortex maintained bone mass and cortical area and increased estimated bending strength. Estimated endocortical resorption accelerated during perimenopause, whereas periosteal apposition decreased. Further cortical thinning occurred, but estimated bending strength was maintained by modest outward cortical displacement. Endocortical resorption accelerated further during the postmenopausal years, whereas periosteal apposition declined further; cortices thinned, but because outward displacement was minimal, estimated cortical area and bending strength now decreased. Women with highest remodeling had the greatest loss of bone mass and strength. Women with low remodeling lost less bone and maintained estimated bone strength. In HRT-treated women, loss of bone strength was partly prevented. These structural indices predicted incident fractures; a 1 SD lower section modulus doubled fracture risk.
Conclusions: Periosteal apposition does not increase after menopause to compensate for bone loss; it decreases. Bone fragility of osteoporosis is a consequence of reduced periosteal bone formation and increased endocortical resorption. Understanding the mechanisms of the age-related decline in periosteal apposition will identify new therapeutic targets. On the basis of our results, it may be speculated that the stimulation of periosteal apposition will increase bone width and improve skeletal strength.
|1994||Parfitt AM. The two faces of growth: benefits and risks to bone integrity. Osteoporos Int. November 1994;4(6):382-398.|
|2003||Ahlborg HG, Johnell O, Turner CH, Rannevik G, Karlsson MK. Bone loss and bone size after menopause. NEJM. July 24, 2003;349(4):327-334.|
|2002||Boivin G, Meunier PJ. The degree of mineralization of bone tissue measured by computerized quantitative contact microradiography. Calcif Tiss Int. June 2002;70(6):503-511.|
|2002||Kontulainen S, Sievänen H, Kannus P, Pasanen M, Vuori I. Effect of long‐term impact‐loading on mass, size, and estimated strength of humerus and radius of female racquet‐sports players: a peripheral quantitative computed tomography study between young and old starters and controls. J Bone Miner Res. December 2002;17(12):2281-2289.|
|1995||Kannus P, Haapasalo H, Sankelo M, Sievanen H, Pasanen M, Heinonen A, Oja P, Vuori I. Effect of starting age of physical activity on bone mass in the dominant arm of tennis and squash players. Ann Intern Med. July 1995;123(1):27-31.|
|1941||Albright F, Smith PH, Richardson AM. Postmenopausal osteoporosis: its clinical features. JAMA. May 31, 1941;116(22):2465-2474.|
|2002||Cummings SR, Melton LJ III. Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet. May 18, 2002;359(9319):1761-1767.|
|2001||Dempster DW, Cosman F, Kurland ES, Zhou H, Nieves J, Woelfert L, Shane E, Plavetić K, Müller R, Bilezikian J, Lindsay R. Effects of daily treatment with parathyroid hormone on bone microarchitecture and turnover in patients with osteoporosis: a paired biopsy study. J Bone Miner Res. October 2001;16(10):1846-1853.|
|2001||Bousson V, Meunier A, Bergot C, Vicaut É, Rocha MA, Morais MH, Laval‐Jeantet A, Laredo J. Distribution of intracortical porosity in human midfemoral cortex by age and gender. J Bone Miner Res. July 2001;16(7):1308-1317.|
|2005||Ito M, Ikeda K, Nishiguchi M, Shindo H, Uetani M, Hosoi T, Orimo H. Multi‐detector row CT imaging of vertebral microstructure for evaluation of fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res. October 2005;20(10):1828-1836.|
|1982||Ruff CB, Hayes WC. Subperiosteal expansion and cortical remodeling of the human femur and tibia with aging. Science. September 3, 1982;217(4563):945-948.|
|1988||Ruff CB, Hayes WC. Sex differences in age‐related remodeling of the femur and tibia. J Orthop Res. November 1988;6(6):886-896.|
|2006||Seeman E, Delmas PD. Bone quality: the material and structural basis of bone strength and fragility. NEJM. May 25, 2006;354(21):2250-2261.|
|2003||Seeman E. Periosteal bone formation: a neglected determinant of bone strength. NEJM. July 24, 2003;349(4):320-323.|
|2005||Mayhew PM, Thomas CD, Clement JG, Loveridge N, Beck TJ, Bonfield W, Burgoyne CJ, Reeve J. Relation between age, femoral neck cortical stability, and hip fracture risk. Lancet. July 9, 2005;366(9480):129-135.|
|2004||Riggs BL, Melton LJ III, Robb RA, Camp JJ, Atkinson EJ, Peterson JM, Rouleau PA, McCollough CH, Bouxsein ML, Khosla S. Population-based study of age and sex differences in bone volumetricdensity, size, geometry, and structure at different skeletal sites. J Bone Miner Res. December 2004;19(12):1945-1954.|
|1978||Lips P, Courpron P, Meunier PJ. Mean wall thickness of trabecular bone packets in the human iliac crest: changes with age. Calcif Tiss Res. 1978;26(1):13-17.|
|2010||Gourion-Arsiquaud S, Allen MR, Burr DB, Vashishth D, Tang SY, Boskey AL. Bisphosphonate treatment modifies canine bone mineral and matrix properties and their heterogeneity. Bone. March 2010;46(3):666-672.|
|2020||Su Y, Wang L, Liu X, Yang M, Yi C, Liu Y, Huang P, Guo Z, Yu A, Cheng X, Wu X, Blake GM, Engelke K. Lack of periosteal apposition in the head and neck of femur after menopause in Chinese women with high risk for hip fractures: a cross-sectional study with QCT. Bone. October 2020;139:115545.|
|2021||Whitney DG, Hurvitz EA, Caird MS. Critical periods of bone health across the lifespan for individuals with cerebral palsy: informing clinical guidelines for fracture prevention and monitoring. Bone. September 2021;150:116009.|
|2021||Stürznickel J, Schmidt FN, Schäfer HS, Beil FT, Frosch K-H, Schlickewei C, Amling M, Barg A, Rolvien T. Bone microarchitecture of the distal fibula assessed by HR-pQCT. Bone. October 2021;151:116057.|
|2008||Seeman E. Bone quality: the material and structural basis of bone strength. J Bone Min Metab. 2008;26(1):1-8.|
|2019||Grover K, Hu M, Lin L, Muir J, Qin Y-X. Functional disuse initiates medullary endosteal micro-architectural impairment in cortical bone characterized by nanoindentation. J Bone Min Metab. November 2019;37(6):1048-1057.|
|2007||Melton LJ, Riggs BL, van Lenthe GH, Achenbach SJ, Müller R, Bouxsein ML, Amin S, Atkinson EJ, Khosla S. Contribution of in vivo structural measurements and load/strength ratios to the determination of forearm fracture risk in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res. September 2007;22(9):1442-1448.|
|2020||Hart NH, Newton RU, Tan2 J, Rantalainen T, Chivers P, Siafarikas A, Nimphius S. Biological basis of bone strength: anatomy, physiology and measurement. J Musculoskel Neuron Interact. September 2020;20(3):347-371.|
|2014||Warden SJ, Roosa SMM, Kersh ME, Hurd AL, Fleisig GS, Pandy MG, Fuchs RK. Physical activity when young provides lifelong benefits to cortical bone size and strength in men. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. April 8, 2014;1111(14):5337-5342.|
|2008||Tommasini SM. Phenotypic Integration Contributes to Skeletal Functionality and Fragility [PhD thesis]. New York, NY: The City University of New York; 2008.|
|2015||Ramcharan MA. Development of Functional Interactions Among Cortical and Trabecular Traits During Growth of the Lumbar Vertebral Body [PhD thesis]. New York, NY: The City University of New York; 2015.|
|2008||Price C. Systems Based Approaches to Identifying How Genetically Varying Skeletal Growth Affects Skeletal Functionality and Fragility [PhD thesis]. Mount Sinai School of Medicine; 2008.|
|2015||Grover K. Osteopenia Uncovered by Remodeling in Spatial Distribution of Elastic Moduli in Orthogonal Orientations: A Nanoindentation Study [Master's thesis]. Stony Brook, NY: Stony Brook University; May 2015.|
|2016||Hildebrandt EM. Effect of Increased 25(OH)D on Bone Health, a High Resolution Peripheral Computed Tomography Study [Master's thesis]. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary; April 2016.|
|2015||Begun DL. Age-Related Changes in Bone: Variation and Factors Influencing Bone Fragility [PhD thesis]. University of Michigan; 2015.|
|2013||Liao L. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Proximal Femur and Surrounding Muscles: in Vivo Precision [Master's thesis]. University of Saskatchewan; September 2013.|
|2013||Eleazer CD. The Interaction of Mechanical Loading and Metabolic Stress on Human Cortical Bone: Testing Anthropological Assumptions Using Cross-Sectional Geometry and Histomorphology [PhD thesis]. Knoxville, University of Tennessee; August 2013.|