Daniel B Hoffman, Albino G Schifino, Marion A Cooley, Roger X Zhong, Junwon Heo, Courtney M Morris, Matthew J Campbell, Gordon L Warren, Sarah M Greising, Jarrod A Call
{"title":"Low intensity, high frequency vibration training to improve musculoskeletal function in a mouse model of volumetric muscle loss.","authors":"Daniel B Hoffman, Albino G Schifino, Marion A Cooley, Roger X Zhong, Junwon Heo, Courtney M Morris, Matthew J Campbell, Gordon L Warren, Sarah M Greising, Jarrod A Call","doi":"10.1002/jor.26023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study's objective was to investigate the extent to which two different levels of low-intensity vibration training (0.6 g or 1.0 g) affected musculoskeletal structure and function after a volumetric muscle loss (VML) injury in male C57BL/6J mice. All mice received a unilateral VML injury to the posterior plantar flexors. Mice were randomized into a control group (no vibration; VML-noTX), or one of two experimental groups. The two experimental groups received vibration training for 15-min/day, 5-days/week for 8 weeks at either 0.6 g (VML-0.6 g) or 1.0 g (VML-1.0 g) beginning 3-days after induction of VML. Muscles were analyzed for contractile and metabolic adaptations. Tibial bone mechanical properties and geometric structure were assessed by a three-point bending test and microcomputed tomography (µCT). Body mass-normalized peak isometric-torque was 18% less in VML-0.6 g mice compared with VML-noTx mice (p = 0.030). There were no statistically significant differences of vibration intervention on contractile power or muscle oxygen consumption (p ≥ 0.191). Bone ultimate load, but not stiffness, was ~16% greater in tibias of VML-1.0 g mice compared with those from VML-noTx mice (p = 0.048). Cortical bone volume was ~12% greater in tibias of both vibration groups compared with VML-noTx mice (p = 0.003). Importantly, cross-section moment of inertia, the primary determinant of bone ultimate load, was 44% larger in tibias of VML-0.6 g mice compared with VML-noTx mice (p = 0.006). These changes indicate that following VML, bones are more responsive to the selected vibration training parameters than muscle. Vibration training represents a possible adjuvant intervention to address bone deficits following VML.</p>","PeriodicalId":16650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Research®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Research®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.26023","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study's objective was to investigate the extent to which two different levels of low-intensity vibration training (0.6 g or 1.0 g) affected musculoskeletal structure and function after a volumetric muscle loss (VML) injury in male C57BL/6J mice. All mice received a unilateral VML injury to the posterior plantar flexors. Mice were randomized into a control group (no vibration; VML-noTX), or one of two experimental groups. The two experimental groups received vibration training for 15-min/day, 5-days/week for 8 weeks at either 0.6 g (VML-0.6 g) or 1.0 g (VML-1.0 g) beginning 3-days after induction of VML. Muscles were analyzed for contractile and metabolic adaptations. Tibial bone mechanical properties and geometric structure were assessed by a three-point bending test and microcomputed tomography (µCT). Body mass-normalized peak isometric-torque was 18% less in VML-0.6 g mice compared with VML-noTx mice (p = 0.030). There were no statistically significant differences of vibration intervention on contractile power or muscle oxygen consumption (p ≥ 0.191). Bone ultimate load, but not stiffness, was ~16% greater in tibias of VML-1.0 g mice compared with those from VML-noTx mice (p = 0.048). Cortical bone volume was ~12% greater in tibias of both vibration groups compared with VML-noTx mice (p = 0.003). Importantly, cross-section moment of inertia, the primary determinant of bone ultimate load, was 44% larger in tibias of VML-0.6 g mice compared with VML-noTx mice (p = 0.006). These changes indicate that following VML, bones are more responsive to the selected vibration training parameters than muscle. Vibration training represents a possible adjuvant intervention to address bone deficits following VML.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Orthopaedic Research is the forum for the rapid publication of high quality reports of new information on the full spectrum of orthopaedic research, including life sciences, engineering, translational, and clinical studies.