Low intensity, high frequency vibration training to improve musculoskeletal function in a mouse model of volumetric muscle loss.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
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.

低强度、高频振动训练改善体积性肌肉损失小鼠模型的肌肉骨骼功能。
本研究的目的是研究两种不同水平的低强度振动训练(0.6 g或1.0 g)对雄性C57BL/6J小鼠体积性肌肉损失(VML)损伤后肌肉骨骼结构和功能的影响程度。所有小鼠均接受单侧后跖屈肌VML损伤。将小鼠随机分为对照组(无振动;VML-noTX),或两个实验组之一。两组小鼠在诱导VML后第3天开始,以0.6 g (VML-0.6 g)或1.0 g (VML-1.0 g)进行振动训练,每次15 min/天,每周5天/周,共8周。分析了肌肉的收缩和代谢适应。通过三点弯曲试验和微计算机断层扫描(µCT)评估胫骨力学性能和几何结构。与VML-noTx小鼠相比,VML-0.6 g小鼠体质量归一化峰值等距扭矩减少18% (p = 0.030)。振动干预对收缩力和肌肉耗氧量的影响差异无统计学意义(p≥0.191)。与VML-noTx小鼠相比,VML-1.0 g小鼠胫骨的极限骨负荷(而不是刚度)增加了约16% (p = 0.048)。与VML-noTx小鼠相比,两组小鼠胫骨皮质骨体积均增加约12% (p = 0.003)。重要的是,与VML-noTx小鼠相比,VML-0.6 g小鼠胫骨的横截面惯性矩(骨极限负荷的主要决定因素)大44% (p = 0.006)。这些变化表明,在VML之后,骨骼比肌肉对选定的振动训练参数更敏感。振动训练是解决VML后骨缺损的一种可能的辅助干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Orthopaedic Research®
Journal of Orthopaedic Research® 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
3.60%
发文量
261
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信