Conclusion
PEMF, WBV, and their combination all attenuated bone resorption and enhanced osteogenesis. WBV and the combination of treatments have great potential to improve osteogenesis compared with PEMF. In addition, HUPW significantly attenuated bone resorption compared with HUW and HUP. Impact: The results of this study indicated that HUPW could effectively improve disuse osteoporosis compared with HUP, given that trabecular number and bone volume over total volume are associated with disuse osteoporosis. Moreover, BMD recovered well with HUP, HUW, and HUPW but the bone structure-especially mechanical performance-did not, indicating that osteoporosis should be evaluated with BMD and mechanical performance, not with BMD in isolation.
Methods
A disuse osteoporosis rat model was developed by hind-limb unloading (HU) for 6 weeks. Forty 4-month-old female Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into 5 groups and given the following interventions: HU, HU treated with PEMF (HUP), HU treated with WBV (HUW), HU treated with both PEMF and WBV (HUPW), and no intervention (controls). After 8 weeks of intervention, measurements were taken.
Objective
Physical factors have been used to address disuse osteoporosis, but their effects and mechanism remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) and whole-body vibration (WBV) on disuse osteoporosis to increase knowledge about treating osteoporosis.
Results
HU induced a decrease in bone mineral density (BMD), whereas HUP, HUW, and HUPW increased it. Moreover, the bone resorption markers tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) and C-terminal peptide of type 1 collagen in the HU group significantly increased, whereas the osteogenesis markers osteocalcin and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen significantly decreased. The markers osteocalcin and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen significantly increased, but TRAP and C-terminal peptide of type 1 collagen significantly decreased in the HUPW, HUP, and HUW groups compared with the HU group. In particular, HUPW effectively increased osteocalcin and decreased TRAP compared with HUP and WBV. Microcomputed tomography analysis of the femur indicated that HUPW improved trabecular number, bone volume over total volume, bone surface over bone volume, trabecular separation, and the structure model index compared with HUP and that it improved bone surface over bone volume, trabecular separation, and structure model index compared with HUW. The HUPW group showed a significant increase in maximum load compared with the HUW group and a significant increase in elastic modulus compared with the HUP group.