V D Mahalingam1,2, B C Syverud3, A M Myers4, K W VanDusen5, L M Larkin5,3, W M Kuzon4,6, E M Arruda3,7. 1. Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. vasum@umich.edu. 2. Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. vasum@umich.edu. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 6. Ann Arbor Veterans Administration Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 7. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Program in Macromolecular Science and Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evaluation of potential grafts to improve upon current strategies for abdominal wall (AW) repair in small animal models typically involves mechanical testing using methods that currently are inadequate to assess physiologically relevant parameters. This study introduces burst inflation testing as a more relevant assessment of the mechanical integrity of the AW compared to traditional tensile testing. METHODS: AWs were excised from 14 healthy adult Fischer 344 rats and tested using either a custom burst inflation device or an Instron tensile testing system. Modulus outcomes from both testing methods were compared. RESULTS: Mechanical analyses of native AW using burst and tensile testing methods resulted in similar average tissue moduli, but with the burst test, there was significantly less variability among specimens. CONCLUSIONS: The burst test had greater repeatability compared to tensile testing and has the ability to test repaired AWs without compromising the integrity of the repair site, making it a useful tool for assessing graft repairs.
PURPOSE: Evaluation of potential grafts to improve upon current strategies for abdominal wall (AW) repair in small animal models typically involves mechanical testing using methods that currently are inadequate to assess physiologically relevant parameters. This study introduces burst inflation testing as a more relevant assessment of the mechanical integrity of the AW compared to traditional tensile testing. METHODS: AWs were excised from 14 healthy adult Fischer 344 rats and tested using either a custom burst inflation device or an Instron tensile testing system. Modulus outcomes from both testing methods were compared. RESULTS: Mechanical analyses of native AW using burst and tensile testing methods resulted in similar average tissue moduli, but with the burst test, there was significantly less variability among specimens. CONCLUSIONS: The burst test had greater repeatability compared to tensile testing and has the ability to test repaired AWs without compromising the integrity of the repair site, making it a useful tool for assessing graft repairs.
Authors: G Broderick; J McIntyre; M Noury; H M Strom; C Psoinos; A Christakas; K Billiar; Z M Hurwitz; J F Lalikos; R A Ignotz; R M Dunn Journal: Hernia Date: 2011-11-26 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: L Melman; E D Jenkins; N A Hamilton; L C Bender; M D Brodt; C R Deeken; S C Greco; M M Frisella; B D Matthews Journal: Hernia Date: 2011-01-08 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Derek A DuBay; Xue Wang; Belinda Adamson; William M Kuzon; Robert G Dennis; Michael G Franz Journal: Surgery Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: C N Criss; Y Gao; G De Silva; J Yang; J M Anderson; Y W Novitsky; H Soltanian; M J Rosen Journal: Hernia Date: 2014-04-13 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: A Klinger; M Kawata; M Villalobos; R B Jones; S Pike; N Wu; S Chang; P Zhang; P DiMuzio; J Vernengo; P Benvenuto; R D Goldfarb; K Hunter; Y Liu; J P Carpenter; T N Tulenko Journal: Hernia Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 4.739