Ossification Centers of Human Femur

Panattoni, Gian Luigi; Stefano, Marco Di; Isaia, G.C.

doi:10.1007/pl00005841

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ossification of the distal femoral end begins between weeks 23 and 40 of gestation [ 3 ]. However, these findings have been queried by Panattoni et al [ 15 ], who observed the onset of ossification in the trochanters during the intrauterine growth. Therefore, these authors hypothesized that neither extended posture nor ambulation affect, as it had previously been thought, the initiation of the development of the trochanteric ossification centers despite fetal movements can stimulate such ossification.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative anatomy of the primary ossification center of the femoral shaft in human fetuses

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeEarly clinical distinction of congenital defects in the femur is extremely important, as it determines the prognosis of the development of the lower limb. This study was performed to quantitatively examine the primary center of ossification in the femoral shaft with respect to its linear, planar, and volumetric parameters.Materials and methodsUsing methods of CT, digital-image analysis, and statistics, the size of the primary ossification center of the femoral shaft in 47 spontaneously aborted human fetuses aged 17–30 weeks was studied.ResultsWith no sex and laterality differences, the best fit growth dynamics for femoral shaft ossification center was modelled by the following functions: y = 5.717 + 0.040 × (age)2 ± 2.905 (R 2 = 0.86) for its length, y = −3.579 + 0.368 × age ± 0.529 (R 2 = 0.88) for its proximal transverse diameter, y = −1.105 + 0.187 × age ± 0.309 (R 2 = 0.84) for its middle transverse diameter, y = −2.321 + 0.323 × age ± 0.558 (R 2 = 0.83) for its distal transverse diameter, y = −50.306 + 0.308 × (age)2 ± 18.289 (R 2 = 0.90) for its projection surface area, and y = −91.458 + 0.390 × (age)3 ± 92.146 (R 2 = 0.88) for its volume.ConclusionsThe size of the femoral shaft ossification center displays neither sex nor laterality differences. The ossification center in the femoral shaft follows quadratic functions with respect to its length and projection surface area, linear functions with respect to its proximal, middle, and distal transverse diameters, and a cubic function with respect to its volume. The obtained morphometric data of the femoral shaft ossification center are considered normative for respective prenatal weeks and may be of relevance in both the estimation of fetal ages and the ultrasound diagnostics of congenital defects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative anatomy of the primary ossification center of the femoral shaft in human fetuses

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A primitive cartilage model of the appendicular bone is developed during fetal morphogenesis. [1][2][3][4] Invasion of blood vessels at the mid-diaphysis represents the first hint of bone formation in a continuing process of the formation of the primary ossification center. 4,5 In different mammalian species, the entire epiphysis of either the proximal or distal condyle is usually cartilaginous shortly before or after birth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modulation of endochondral development of the distal femoral condyle by mechanical loading

Sundaramurthy

Mao

2005

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although previous theoretical modeling studies have predicted that various mechanical stresses accelerate or inhibit the ossification process of the neonatal chondroepiphysis, there is a paucity of experimental data to verify these models. The present study was designed to provide experimental evidence on whether the ossification of the chondroepiphysis is modulated by mechanical loading on the distal femoral condyle explant of the neonatal (5-day-old) rabbit in organ culture. Upon aseptic dissection, the right condyle explant was immersed in and fixated to an organ culture system, and received cyclic forces at 200 mN and 1 Hz for 12 h (N ¼ 8) directly on its slightly convex articular surface, whereas the contralateral, left condyle explant was immersed separately in organ culture (N ¼ 8). Subsequently, both loaded and control explants were placed in a bioreactor rotating at 20 rpm for 72 h. In each mechanically loaded specimen, a structure reminiscent of the secondary ossification center (SOC) appeared with an average area of 1.17 AE 0.13 mm 2 , or 15.2 AE 8.2% of the total epiphysis area. In contrast, no SOC was detected in any of the unloaded contralateral control specimens. The SOC in mechanically loaded specimens was stained intensively with fast green, whereas either the rest of the loaded epiphysis or the entire control epiphysis was stained intensely to safranin-O but lacked fast green staining. Immunolocalization revealed that the SOC of the mechanically loaded specimens expressed Runx 2 and osteopontin, both of which were absent in the unloaded control specimens. Type X collagen was expressed surrounding hypertrophic chondrocytes adjacent to the SOC, but was absent in the control specimen. Type II collagen and decorin were absent in the SOC of the loaded specimen, but were expressed throughout the rest of the loaded epiphysis and the unloaded control epiphysis. The intensity of type II collagen and decorin expression was significantly stronger among hypertrophic chondrocytes surrounding the SOC than the control. The numbers of hypertrophic chondrocytes surrounding the SOC and superior to metaphyseal bone were significantly higher in the loaded specimens than the unloaded controls. Taken together, mechanical stresses accelerate the formation of the secondary ossification center, and therefore modulate endochondral ossification. ß

show abstract

“…Once the epiphyseal plate fully ossifies, the bone can no longer grow in length. In mice, secondary ossification centers do not appear until after birth (Patton & Kaufman, 1995), but in humans some secondary centers can be detected prenatally (Panattoni, D'Amelio, Di Stefano, & Isaia, 2000).…”

Section: Somatic Developmental Effects Of Cannabis Smoke or ‐Thc In A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal evidence considered in determination of cannabis smoke and Δ⁹‐tetrahydrocannabinol as causing reproductive toxicity (developmental endpoint); Part I. Somatic development

Campbell

Iyer

Kaufman

et al. 2022

Birth Defects Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: On December 11, 2019, California's Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DARTIC) met to consider the addition of cannabis smoke and Δ 9 -THC to the Proposition 65 list as causing reproductive toxicity (developmental endpoint). As the lead state agency for implementing Proposition 65, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) reviewed and summarized the relevant scientific literature in the form of a hazard identification document (HID). Here we provide reviews based on the HID: shortened, revised, and reformatted for a larger audience.Methods: While the HID included both human and animal data, this set of three reviews will highlight the animal-derived data pertaining to somatic development (Part I), neurodevelopmental effects (Part II), and proposed neurodevelopmental mechanisms of action (Part III).Results: Endogenous cannabinoids (eCBs) and their receptors serve many critical functions in normal development. Δ 9 -THC can interfere with these functions. Mechanistic studies employed techniques including: blocking Δ 9 -THC binding to endocannabinoid (EC) receptors, inhibiting Δ 9 -THC metabolism, and/or using animals expressing knockout mutations of EC receptors.Apical somatic effects of cannabis smoke or Δ 9 -THC reported in whole animal studies included decreases in offspring viability and growth. Mechanistic studies discussed in Part I focused on Δ 9 -THC effects on early embryos and implantation, immune development, and bone growth. Conclusions: In reaching its decision to list cannabis and Δ 9 -THC as a developmental toxicant under California's Proposition 65, the DARTIC considered biological plausibility and the consistency of mechanistic information with effects reported in human and whole animal studies.

show abstract

Ossification Centers of Human Femur

Cited by 9 publications

References 15 publications

Quantitative anatomy of the primary ossification center of the femoral shaft in human fetuses

Quantitative anatomy of the primary ossification center of the femoral shaft in human fetuses

Modulation of endochondral development of the distal femoral condyle by mechanical loading

Animal evidence considered in determination of cannabis smoke and Δ⁹‐tetrahydrocannabinol as causing reproductive toxicity (developmental endpoint); Part I. Somatic development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Ossification Centers of Human Femur

Cited by 9 publications

References 15 publications

Quantitative anatomy of the primary ossification center of the femoral shaft in human fetuses

Quantitative anatomy of the primary ossification center of the femoral shaft in human fetuses

Modulation of endochondral development of the distal femoral condyle by mechanical loading

Animal evidence considered in determination of cannabis smoke and Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabinol as causing reproductive toxicity (developmental endpoint); Part I. Somatic development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Animal evidence considered in determination of cannabis smoke and Δ⁹‐tetrahydrocannabinol as causing reproductive toxicity (developmental endpoint); Part I. Somatic development