论文部分内容阅读
目的:测量并分析胸椎椎骨Tn 1~Tn 10的显微骨硬度的分布特征及意义。n 方法:3具新鲜尸体标本（62岁男，45岁女性，58岁男性）Tn 1~Tn 10椎骨部分，分为椎体区和附件区。使用高精慢速锯精确切取若干厚约3 mm的标本，并选取11个测量区域，其中皮质骨标为1~9，松质骨标为10和11。应用维氏显微硬度测量仪测量标本表面硬度，记录并分析胸椎显微硬度分布规律。n 结果:胸椎30块椎骨合计测量330个测量区域，每个区域随机选取5个有效压痕硬度值，共获得1 650个测量值。3具尸体标本胸椎段总体皮质骨平均硬度值分别为（30.55±5.44）HV、（29.94±4.86）HV、（29.55±4.36）HV，组间比较差异有统计学意义（n F=4.680，n P=0.009）；总体松质骨平均硬度值分别为（27.93±5.61）HV、（28.21±4.96）HV、（27.98±3.94）HV，组间比较差异无统计学意义（n F=0.091，n P=0.913）。3具尸体标本各自的附件区皮质骨与椎体区皮质骨硬度值比较，差异均有统计学意义（n t=7.467、4.750、6.621，均n P<0.001）；3具尸体标本各自的附件区松质骨硬度值均高于椎体区松质骨硬度值（n t=1.785、3.159、3.103，n P=0.077、0.002、0.003）。3具尸体标本11个测量区域显微硬度的分布规律相似：皮质骨硬度较高的区域均为椎弓根、椎板和下终板皮质（1、2、7）；皮质骨硬度值较低区域均为上终板和外周皮质（6、8、9）。3具尸体标本Tn 1~Tn 10不同节段的显微硬度分布规律相似：硬度值自上而下逐渐加大，其中皮质骨硬度值最大的椎骨均是Tn 8；松质骨硬度最大的椎骨分别是Tn 7、Tn 7、Tn 6。n 结论:上终板和外周皮质骨硬度较小，可以分散负重以保护内在较为脆弱的松质骨，椎体区向后部结构移行的椎弓根区域硬度值最大。胸椎皮质骨硬度高于松质骨，并且不同节段的硬度值自上而下逐渐加大，Tn 6~Tn 8呈现“小高峰”可能与胸椎节段生理解剖形态、自上而下承受肌肉力和身体自身重量的载荷逐步增加有关。n “,”Objective:To measure and analyze the distribution characteristics of the micro-hardness of the middle-upper thoracic vertebrae (Tn 1-Tn 10) in the human body.n Methods:Tn 1-Tn 10 vertebrae from three fresh cadavers were divided into vertebral body area and attachment area. 3 mm specimens were cut by a high-precision slow saw and 11 regions were selected and measured on each vertebrae by a Vickers microhardness tester (cortical bone: 1-9, cancellous bone: 10-11). The micro-hardness distribution of Tn 1-Tn 10 vertebrae was recorded and analyzed.n Results:A total of 330 measurement areas from 30 vertebrae were measured, and 1 650 hardness values were collected. The average hardness values of the overall cortical bone of the middle-upper thoracic vertebrae of the 3 cadavers were 30.55±5.44 HV, 29.94±4.86 HV, and 29.55±4.36 HV, respectively. The difference among the groups was statistically significant (n F=4.680, n P=0.009). The average hardness values of the overall cancellous bone were 27.93±5.61 HV, 28.21±4.96 HV, 27.98±3.94 HV, respectively. There was no significant difference among the groups (n F=0.091, n P=0.913). There were statistically significant differences between the hardness values in the attachment area and vertebral body area of each cadaver (n t=7.467, 4.750, 6.621, n P<0.001); the hardness of the cancellous bone in the attachment area of each cadaver was higher than that of the cancellous bone in the vertebral body (n t=1.785, 3.159, 3.103, n P=0.077, 0.002, 0.003). The distribution of microhardness in 11 measurement areas of 3 cadavers were similar: the hardness of the cortical bone of pedicle, lamina and inferior endplate cortex (1, 2, 7) were higher; the hardness of the cortical bone of upper endplate and peripheral cortex (6, 8, 9) were lower. The distribution patterns of the microhardness in different vertebral segments of the 3 cadavers were similar: The hardness values gradually increased from Tn 1 to Tn 10. The vertebra with the largest hardness of the cortical bone was Tn 8; and the vertebra with the largest hardness of the cancellous bone were Tn 7, Tn 7 and Tn 6, respectively.n Conclusion:The hardness of the upper endplate and peripheral cortex was low, which could disperse the load to protect the fragile cancellous bone. The hardness of the pedicle was the highest. The hardness of the cortical bone was higher than that of the cancellous bone, and the values of different segments gradually increased from top to bottom, which may be related to the physiological and anatomical morphology, and the gradual increase of the load of muscle force and body weight.