Age‐dependent change and intraskeletal variability in secondary osteons of elderly Australians

Lucille T. Pedersen,Justyna Miszkiewicz,Lit Chien Cheah,Anna Willis,Kate M. Domett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.14010

2024-01-20

Journal of Anatomy

Abstract:This study evaluated age‐related histomorphometric changes (osteon population density (OPD), osteon area (On.Ar), and Haversian canal area (H.Ar)) in three different bones intra‐individually in a modern Australian sample. Femur and humerus histology data were adjusted with robusticity indices, and our findings demonstrate that bone size influences histomorphometry, and this could confound age‐at‐death estimations that have not been adjusted for robusticity. There is a need to fully understand intra‐skeletal variability within different populations to develop and improve age‐at‐death estimation methods. This study evaluates age‐related histomorphometric changes in three different bones intra‐individually in a modern Australian sample. Four female and 13 male elderly Australian adult donors (67–93 years) were examined for osteon population density (OPD), osteon area (On.Ar), and Haversian canal area (H.Ar) of secondary osteons to compare between femora, ribs, and humeri and assess against age. In the pooled sex sample, no statistically significant correlations were observed between age and each histological variable. In the males, OPD of the femur increased significantly with age, as did porosity in the rib. In the male humeri, OPD increased moderately with age, while H.Ar was decreased moderately with age. Intra‐bone comparisons showed that males had significantly higher osteon counts in their ribs compared to their femora, while their ribs showed statistically significantly less porosity than their humeri. When bone size was accounted for, by adjusting the femur and humerus histology data by robusticity indices, histology values were found to be similar between bones within the same individual. This is despite the upper and lower limbs receiving different ranges and types of biomechanical load. Our findings demonstrate that bone size influences histomorphometry, and this could confound age‐at‐death estimations that have not been adjusted for robusticity. Future studies would benefit from examining bone histomorphometry within a larger sample size and incorporating bone robusticity measures into histology analyses.

anatomy & morphology