Cargando…

Biomechanical comparison of menisci from different species and artificial constructs

BACKGROUND: Loss of meniscal tissue is correlated with early osteoarthritis but few data exist regarding detailed biomechanical properties (e.g. viscoelastic behavior) of menisci in different species commonly used as animal models. The purpose of the current study was to biomechanically characterize...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sandmann, Gunther H, Adamczyk, Christopher, Garcia, Eduardo Grande, Doebele, Stefan, Buettner, Andreas, Milz, Stefan, Imhoff, Andreas B, Vogt, Stefan, Burgkart, Rainer, Tischer, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3840579/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24237933
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-324
_version_ 1782478527493308416
author Sandmann, Gunther H
Adamczyk, Christopher
Garcia, Eduardo Grande
Doebele, Stefan
Buettner, Andreas
Milz, Stefan
Imhoff, Andreas B
Vogt, Stefan
Burgkart, Rainer
Tischer, Thomas
author_facet Sandmann, Gunther H
Adamczyk, Christopher
Garcia, Eduardo Grande
Doebele, Stefan
Buettner, Andreas
Milz, Stefan
Imhoff, Andreas B
Vogt, Stefan
Burgkart, Rainer
Tischer, Thomas
author_sort Sandmann, Gunther H
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Loss of meniscal tissue is correlated with early osteoarthritis but few data exist regarding detailed biomechanical properties (e.g. viscoelastic behavior) of menisci in different species commonly used as animal models. The purpose of the current study was to biomechanically characterize bovine, ovine, and porcine menisci (each n = 6, midpart of the medial meniscus) and compare their properties to that of normal and degenerated human menisci (n = 6) and two commercially available artificial scaffolds (each n = 3). METHODS: Samples were tested in a cyclic, minimally constraint compression–relaxation test with a universal testing machine allowing the characterization of the viscoelastic properties including stiffness, residual force and relative sample compression. T-tests were used to compare the biomechanical parameters of all samples. Significance level was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Throughout cyclic testing stiffness, residual force and relative sample compression increased significantly (p < 0.05) in all tested meniscus samples. From the tested animal meniscus samples the ovine menisci showed the highest biomechanical similarity to human menisci in terms of stiffness (human: 8.54 N/mm ± 1.87, cycle 1; ovine: 11.24 N/mm ± 2.36, cycle 1, p = 0.0528), residual force (human: 2.99 N ± 0.63, cycle 1 vs. ovine 3.24 N ± 0.13, cycle 1, p = 0.364) and relative sample compression (human 19.92% ± 0.63, cycle 1 vs. 18.72% ± 1.84 in ovine samples at cycle 1, p = 0.162). The artificial constructs -as hypothesized- revealed statistically significant inferior biomechanical properties. CONCLUSIONS: For future research the use of ovine meniscus would be desirable showing the highest biomechanical similarities to human meniscus tissue. The significantly different biomechanical properties of the artificial scaffolds highlight the necessity of cellular ingrowth and formation of extracellular matrix to gain viscoelastic properties. As a consequence, a period of unloading (at least partial weight bearing) is necessary, until the remodeling process in the scaffold is sufficient to withstand forces during weight bearing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3840579
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38405792013-11-27 Biomechanical comparison of menisci from different species and artificial constructs Sandmann, Gunther H Adamczyk, Christopher Garcia, Eduardo Grande Doebele, Stefan Buettner, Andreas Milz, Stefan Imhoff, Andreas B Vogt, Stefan Burgkart, Rainer Tischer, Thomas BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Loss of meniscal tissue is correlated with early osteoarthritis but few data exist regarding detailed biomechanical properties (e.g. viscoelastic behavior) of menisci in different species commonly used as animal models. The purpose of the current study was to biomechanically characterize bovine, ovine, and porcine menisci (each n = 6, midpart of the medial meniscus) and compare their properties to that of normal and degenerated human menisci (n = 6) and two commercially available artificial scaffolds (each n = 3). METHODS: Samples were tested in a cyclic, minimally constraint compression–relaxation test with a universal testing machine allowing the characterization of the viscoelastic properties including stiffness, residual force and relative sample compression. T-tests were used to compare the biomechanical parameters of all samples. Significance level was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Throughout cyclic testing stiffness, residual force and relative sample compression increased significantly (p < 0.05) in all tested meniscus samples. From the tested animal meniscus samples the ovine menisci showed the highest biomechanical similarity to human menisci in terms of stiffness (human: 8.54 N/mm ± 1.87, cycle 1; ovine: 11.24 N/mm ± 2.36, cycle 1, p = 0.0528), residual force (human: 2.99 N ± 0.63, cycle 1 vs. ovine 3.24 N ± 0.13, cycle 1, p = 0.364) and relative sample compression (human 19.92% ± 0.63, cycle 1 vs. 18.72% ± 1.84 in ovine samples at cycle 1, p = 0.162). The artificial constructs -as hypothesized- revealed statistically significant inferior biomechanical properties. CONCLUSIONS: For future research the use of ovine meniscus would be desirable showing the highest biomechanical similarities to human meniscus tissue. The significantly different biomechanical properties of the artificial scaffolds highlight the necessity of cellular ingrowth and formation of extracellular matrix to gain viscoelastic properties. As a consequence, a period of unloading (at least partial weight bearing) is necessary, until the remodeling process in the scaffold is sufficient to withstand forces during weight bearing. BioMed Central 2013-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3840579/ /pubmed/24237933 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-324 Text en Copyright © 2013 Sandmann et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sandmann, Gunther H
Adamczyk, Christopher
Garcia, Eduardo Grande
Doebele, Stefan
Buettner, Andreas
Milz, Stefan
Imhoff, Andreas B
Vogt, Stefan
Burgkart, Rainer
Tischer, Thomas
Biomechanical comparison of menisci from different species and artificial constructs
title Biomechanical comparison of menisci from different species and artificial constructs
title_full Biomechanical comparison of menisci from different species and artificial constructs
title_fullStr Biomechanical comparison of menisci from different species and artificial constructs
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical comparison of menisci from different species and artificial constructs
title_short Biomechanical comparison of menisci from different species and artificial constructs
title_sort biomechanical comparison of menisci from different species and artificial constructs
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3840579/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24237933
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-324
work_keys_str_mv AT sandmannguntherh biomechanicalcomparisonofmeniscifromdifferentspeciesandartificialconstructs
AT adamczykchristopher biomechanicalcomparisonofmeniscifromdifferentspeciesandartificialconstructs
AT garciaeduardogrande biomechanicalcomparisonofmeniscifromdifferentspeciesandartificialconstructs
AT doebelestefan biomechanicalcomparisonofmeniscifromdifferentspeciesandartificialconstructs
AT buettnerandreas biomechanicalcomparisonofmeniscifromdifferentspeciesandartificialconstructs
AT milzstefan biomechanicalcomparisonofmeniscifromdifferentspeciesandartificialconstructs
AT imhoffandreasb biomechanicalcomparisonofmeniscifromdifferentspeciesandartificialconstructs
AT vogtstefan biomechanicalcomparisonofmeniscifromdifferentspeciesandartificialconstructs
AT burgkartrainer biomechanicalcomparisonofmeniscifromdifferentspeciesandartificialconstructs
AT tischerthomas biomechanicalcomparisonofmeniscifromdifferentspeciesandartificialconstructs