PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to find a suitable method of labelling cartilage samples for the measurement of distraction distances in biomechanical testing. METHODS: Samples of bovine cartilage were labelled using five different methods: hydroquinone and silver nitrate (AgNO3), potassium permanganate (KMnO4) with sodium thiosulphate (Na2S2O3), India ink, heat, and laser energy. After the labelling, we analysed the cartilage samples with regard to cytotoxity by histochemical staining with ethidiumbromide homodimer (EthD-1) and calcein AM. Furthermore, we tested cartilages labelled with India ink and heat in a T-peel test configuration to analyse possible changes in the mechanical behaviour between marked and unlabelled samples. RESULTS: Only the labelling methods with Indian ink or a heated needle showed acceptable results in the cytotoxity test with regard to labelling persistence, accuracy, and the influence on consistency and viability of the chondrocytes. In the biomechanical T-peel configuration, heat-labelled samples collapsed significantly earlier than unlabelled samples. CONCLUSION: Labelling bovine cartilage samples with Indian ink in biomechanical testing is a reliable, accurate, inexpensive, and easy-to-perform method. This labelling method influenced neither the biomechanical behaviour nor the viability of the tissue compared to untreated bovine cartilage.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to find a suitable method of labelling cartilage samples for the measurement of distraction distances in biomechanical testing. METHODS: Samples of bovinecartilage were labelled using five different methods: hydroquinone and silver nitrate (AgNO3), potassium permanganate (KMnO4) with sodium thiosulphate (Na2S2O3), India ink, heat, and laser energy. After the labelling, we analysed the cartilage samples with regard to cytotoxity by histochemical staining with ethidiumbromide homodimer (EthD-1) and calcein AM. Furthermore, we tested cartilages labelled with India ink and heat in a T-peel test configuration to analyse possible changes in the mechanical behaviour between marked and unlabelled samples. RESULTS: Only the labelling methods with Indian ink or a heated needle showed acceptable results in the cytotoxity test with regard to labelling persistence, accuracy, and the influence on consistency and viability of the chondrocytes. In the biomechanical T-peel configuration, heat-labelled samples collapsed significantly earlier than unlabelled samples. CONCLUSION: Labelling bovinecartilage samples with Indian ink in biomechanical testing is a reliable, accurate, inexpensive, and easy-to-perform method. This labelling method influenced neither the biomechanical behaviour nor the viability of the tissue compared to untreated bovinecartilage.