Original ArticleNo Access

Validation of the Chicken Femur as a Model for the Human Metacarpal: An In-Vitro Analysis

Abhirup LOBO

Victorian Hand Surgery Associates, Melbourne, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

David ACKLAND

Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Dale ROBINSON

Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

, and

Stephen K. Y. THAM

Victorian Hand Surgery Associates, Melbourne, Australia

E-mail Address: stham@bigpond.net.au

Correspondence to: Stephen K. Y. Tham, Victorian Hand Surgery Associates, Suite C37, Level 3, Building C, St Vincent’s Hospital, 41 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy Victoria 3065, Australia. Tel: +61-3-9412-8860.

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424835524500383Cited by:0 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the chicken femur as a laboratory model for the human metacarpal by comparing the bone microarchitecture and mechanical properties of chicken femurs to human cadaveric metacarpals.

Methods: Sixteen fresh chicken femora and 20 fresh frozen cadaveric human metacarpals were imaged using a micro computed tomography scanner. The bones were then mechanically tested using four-point-bending and torsional testing.

Results: There were no significant differences in macroscopic features between chicken femora and human metacarpals, including overall length, external radius, internal radius, cortical width and cross-sectional area of the diaphyseal cortex (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in the trabecular number and spacing in the distal metaphysis of both groups (p > 0.05). The diaphysis and proximal metaphysis did not share any microarchitectural similarities. Four-point bending tests resulted in significantly higher yield forces, ultimate force, failure points and stiffness in human metacarpals (p < 0.05). Torsion tests resulted in significant higher ultimate torque and torsional rigidity in human metacarpals (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: The chicken femur has structural and biomechanical differences to the fresh frozen human metacarpal despite the similarity in their macroscopic features.

Keywords:

References

1. Taguchi T, Lopez MJ. An overview of de novo bone generation in animal models. J Orthop Res. January 2021;39(1):7–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.24852. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
2. Massengill JB, Alexander H, Langrana N, Mylod A. A phalangeal fracture model – Quantitative analysis of rigidity and failure. J Hand Surg. 1982;7(3):264–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-5023(82)80177-9. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
3. Schafrum Macedo A, Cezaretti Feitosa C, Yoiti Kitamura Kawamoto F, et al.. Animal modelling in bone research – Should we follow the White Rabbit? Anim Models Exp Med. 2019;2(3):162–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/ame2.12083. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
4. Elfar J, Menorca RMG, Reed JD, Stanbury S. Composite bone models in orthopaedic surgery research and education. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22(2):111–120. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-201402000-00006. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
5. Landsman AS, Chang TJ. Can synthetic bone models approximate the mechanical properties of cadaveric first metatarsal bone? J Foot Ankle Surg. 1998;37(2):122–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1067-2516(98)80091-4. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
6. Govila A. A simple model on which to practise microsurgical technique: A fresh chicken. Br J Plast Surg. 1981;34(4):486–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-1226(81)90065-5. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
7. Malic C, Jivan S, Majumder S. A simple model for hand trauma training. J Hand Surg Eur. 2007;32(5):578–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHSE.2007.05.008. Crossref, Google Scholar
8. Sargazi N, Oskrochi Y, Houghton J, Rai B, Brown D, Cheung G. Chicken or the thumb? Comparing chicken femora with human metacarpals. Bull R Coll Surg Engl. 2021;103(4):196–201. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsbull.2021.75. Crossref, Google Scholar
9. Whitehead CC. Overview of bone biology in the egg-laying hen. Poult Sci. 2004;83(2):193–199. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.2.193. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
10. Skerry TM, Suswillo R, El Haj AJ, Ali NN, Dodds RA, Lanyon LE. Load-induced proteoglycan orientation in bone tissuein vivo and in vitro. Calcif Tissue Int. 1990;46(5):318–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02563823. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
11. Lanyon LE, Rubin CT. Static vs dynamic loads as an influence on bone remodelling. J Biomech. 1984;17(12):897–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(84)90003-4. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
12. Maloul A, Rossmeier K, Mikic B, Pogue V, Battaglia T. Geometric and material contributions to whole bone structural behavior in GDF-7-deficient mice. Connect Tissue Res. 2006;47(3):157–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/03008200600719142. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13. Charan J, Kantharia ND. How to calculate sample size in animal studies? J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2013;4(4):303–306. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.119726. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
14. Reed JD, Stanbury SJ, Menorca RM, Elfar JC. The emerging utility of composite bone models in biomechanical studies of the hand and upper extremity. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38(3):583–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.12.005. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
15. Augat P, Schorlemmer S. The role of cortical bone and its microstructure in bone strength. Age Ageing. 2006:35(Suppl 2):ii27–ii31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afl081. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
16. Edwards WB, Schnitzer TJ, Troy KL. Torsional stiffness and strength of the proximal tibia are better predicted by finite element models than DXA or QCT. J Biomech. 2013;46(10):1655–1662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.04.016. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar