Table 3 Comparisons of microstructure, BMD and strength of subchondral bone on medial side in patients without or with T2D

From: Abnormal subchondral bone remodeling and its association with articular cartilage degradation in knees of type 2 diabetes patients

Bony structure

Control (n=20)

Non-diabetic (n=70)

Diabetes (n=51)

P

(BV/TV)/%

29.18±2.51

39.47±5.05*

↓ 31.37±3.87*

0.001

Tb.N/mm−1

2.69±0.38

2.39±0.27*

↓ 2.05±0.21*

0.002

SMI

1.67±0.26

0.34±0.1*

↑ 0.72±0.11*

< 0.001

Tb.Sp/μm

204.32±35.61

326.31±76.71*

↑ 370.22±81.36*

< 0.001

Tb.Th/μm

108.42±13.57

174.27±25.03*

↓ 145.01±17.68*

0.014

Conn.D/mm−3

338.43±54.31

120.29±21.32*

↓81.3±17.63*

0.012

BMD/(mg·cm−3)

682.22±43.77

802.51±96.41*

↓ 664.67±87.23

0.023

Pl.Th/mm

0.84±0.16

1.18±0.36*

↓ 0.86±0.15

0.036

Pl.Po/%

37.78±3.53

42.77±5.56*

↑53.91±6.33*

0.017

Elastic modulus/MPa

497±52

1041±175*

↓659±65

0.033

  1. Abbreviations: ANOVA, analysis of variance; BMD, bone mineral density; BV/TV, bone volume fraction; PI.Po, subchondral plate porosity; PI.Th, subchondral plate thickness; SMI, structure model index; T2D, type 2 diabetes; Tb.N, trabecular number; Tb.Th, trabecular thickness; Tb.Sp, trabecular separation.
  2. The comparisons of microstructure parameters among the three groups were performed using one-way ANOVA and expressed as mean±s.d. A post-hoc test was further performed if the result was significant. Bold text indicates a statistically significant difference with a P-value<0.05. *P<0.05, non-diabetic or diabetes group vs. control group. ↓ Significant decrease, P<0.05, diabetes group vs. non-diabetic group. ↑ Significant increase, P<0.05, diabetes group vs. non-diabetic group.
Back to article page