| Literature DB >> 29234987 |
Akinjide R Akintunde1, Kristin S Miller2.
Abstract
Tendon injuries are common to all ages. Injured tendons typically do not recover full functionality. The amount and organization of tendon constituents dictate their mechanical properties. The impact of changes in these constituents during (patho)physiologic processes (e.g., aging and healing) are not fully understood. Toward this end, microstructurally motivated strain energy functions (SEFs) offer insight into underlying mechanisms of age-dependent healing. Several SEFs have been adapted for tendon; however, most are phenomenological. Therefore, the aims of this study are: (1) evaluate the descriptive capability of SEFs in age-dependent murine patellar tendon healing and (2) identify a SEF for implementation in a growth and remodeling (G&R) model. To accomplish these aims, models were fitted to patellar tendon tensile data from multiple age groups and post-injury timepoints. Model sensitivity to parameters and the determinability of the parameters were assessed. A two-way analysis of variance was used to identify changes in parameters and the feasibility of implementing each model into a G&R model is discussed. The evaluated SEFs exhibited adequate descriptive capability. Parameter determinability and sensitivity analysis, however, highlighted the need for additional data to inform and validate the models to increase physiologic relevance and enable G&R model formulation to determine underlying mechanisms of age-dependent healing. This work, as a first, evaluated changes in tendon mechanical properties both as functions of age and injury in an age-dependent manner using microstructurally motivated models, highlights inherent dependencies between parameters of widely used hyperelastic models, and identified unique post-injury behavior by the aging group compared to the mature and aged groups.Entities:
Keywords: Aging; Constitutive model; Healing; Overparameterization; Sensitivity analysis; Tendon
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29234987 PMCID: PMC5948310 DOI: 10.1007/s10237-017-0993-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomech Model Mechanobiol ISSN: 1617-7940
Theoretically and experimentally motivated constraints placed on model parameters during the data fitting process
| Model | Parameter | Constraint | References |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| GOH & SHR |
|
| |
| GOH |
|
| |
| SHR |
| 0–14 GPa |
Andriotis et al. ( |
| FR |
|
| |
| FR |
|
| |
|
| |||
| GOH |
| 0–1/3 |
Gasser et al. ( |
| GOH |
| 0– | |
| SHR |
| 0– |
Shearer ( |
| SHR |
| 0– | |
| FR |
| 10–1000 | |
Fig. 1Fits of the SHR (blue), GOH (green), and FR (red) models to experimental tensile test data [mean (open symbols) ± SE (bar)] for the murine patellar tendons. Top row (aging): a mature, b aging, and c aged. Bottom row (age-dependent healing): d mature, e aging, and f aged. , , and . Models exhibited reasonable fits to the experimental data. A decline with age in the ultimate tensile strength of the tendons is observable from the top row
SHR model parameters (mean ± SE) obtained from the data fitting process with
| Group |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Ctl |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Ctl |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Ctl |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
Significance with age (); significance with injury (); significant age–injury interaction (); trend in age–injury interaction ()
GOH model parameters (mean ± SE) obtained from the data fitting process with
| Group |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Ctl |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Ctl |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Ctl |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significance with age (); significance with injury (); significant age–injury interaction ()
FR model parameters (Mean ± SE) obtained from the data fitting process
| Group |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Ctl |
|
|
|
|
| 3 weeks |
|
|
|
|
| 6 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Ctl |
|
|
|
|
| 3 weeks |
|
|
|
|
| 6 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Ctl |
|
|
|
|
| 3 weeks |
|
|
|
|
| 6 weeks |
|
|
|
|
Significance with age (); significance with injury (); significant age–injury interaction ()
Fig. 2Relative errors of SHR (blue), GOH (green), and FR (red) models. Top row: a mature, b aging, and c aged, all uninjured. Bottom row: d mature, e aging, and f aged—solid lines represents uninjured, dashed lines represents 3 weeks and dotted lines represents 6 weeks. For all models, larger relative errors occurred in the toe region. The FR model had the least relative error values
SHR model parameters (mean ± SE) obtained from the data fitting process with
| Group |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Ctl |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Ctl |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Ctl |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
Significance with age (); significance with injury (); significant age–injury interaction ()
GOH model parameters (mean ± SE) obtained from the data fitting process with
| Group |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Ctl |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Ctl |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Ctl |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 weeks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significance with injury ()
Fig. 3Sensitivity of the SHR model parameters in (a) aging—solid lines represent mature, dashed lines represent aging, and dotted lines represents aged b mature group healing, c aging group healing, and d aged group healing. In (b)–(d), solid lines represent uninjured, dashed lines represent 3 weeks post-injury and dotted lines represents 6 weeks post-injury. , the fascicle alignment angle was the most influential
Fig. 4Sensitivity of the GOH model to its parameters during a aging—solid lines represent mature, dashed lines represent aging, and dotted lines represents aged groups, respectively, b mature group healing, c aging group healing, and d aged group healing. In (b)–(d), solid lines represent uninjured, dashed lines represent 3 weeks post-injury, and dotted lines represents 6 weeks post-injury. was the most influential of the model parameters
Fig. 5Sensitivity of the FR model in a aging—solid lines represent mature group, dashed lines represent aging, and dotted lines represents aged, b mature group healing, c aging group healing, and d aged group healing. In (b)–(d), solid lines represent uninjured, dashed lines represents 3 weeks post-injury, and dotted lines represents 6 weeks post-injury. The influence of the toe region modulus (blue) decreased with stretch as the tendon approached the estimated transition stretch. A switch in the influence of the moduli parameters is observable at the estimated transition stretch. The linear region moduli (red) became influential beyond the estimated transition stretch, though not reaching the same level of influence as that of the toe region modulus before the estimated transition stretch. A decrease in the influence of crimp (i.e., increase in the influence of ) is noticeable as the estimated stretch is approached. A delay in the estimated transition stretch due to injury is mostly observable in the mature group (b) and in the aged group (d)
Fig. 6Results of post hoc tests on SHR model’s (fascicle alignment angle). a Effect of age on fascicle alignment of the uninjured subgroups. Age-dependent effects of injury on fascicle alignment within b the mature group, c the aging group, and d the aged group. exhibited trend toward decreased collagen fascicle alignment with age (a) and post-injury except in the aging group (c), which exhibited neither statistical significance nor trend with injury. Only the aged group exhibited improved fascicle alignment at 6 weeks. Data are presented as mean ± standard error. Statistically significant trend is denoted by # ()
Fig. 7With revised constraints: and , the results of post hoc tests on SHR model’s (Fibril Young’s modulus). a Effect of age on the uninjured subgroups. Age-dependent effects of injury on fibril modulus within: b the mature group, c the aging group, and d the aged group. Fibril modulus reduced with age (a), and with injury except in the aging group (c), and in the aged group (d), which exhibited neither statistical significance nor trend with injury. Data are presented as mean ± standard error. Statistical significance is denoted by: *** (), ** (), and * () and significant trend is denoted by # ()
Fig. 8With revised constraints: and , the results of post hoc tests on (top row) SHR model’s (Fibril crimp angle), and (bottom row) (fascicle alignment angle). Top row: age-dependent effects of injury within: a the mature group, b the aging group, and c the aged group. Crimp angle reduced post-injury (0–3 weeks) in the mature group (a) and increased post-injury in the aging group (b), which also exhibited trend toward decrease during healing (3–6 weeks). The aged group exhibited neither statistical significance nor trend post-injury. Bottom row: age-dependent effects of injury within: d the mature group, e the aging group, and f the aged group. Fascicle alignment reduced post-injury (0–3 and 6 weeks) in the mature group (d) and increased post-injury in the aging group (0–3 weeks) (b). The aged group exhibited neither statistical significance nor trend with injury (f). Data are presented as mean ± standard error. Statistical significance is denoted by: ** () and * () and significant trend is denoted by # ()
Fig. 9Results of post hoc tests on GOH model’s (collagen dispersion). a Effect of age on collagen dispersion of the uninjured subgroups. Age-dependent effects of injury on collagen dispersion within: b the mature group, c the aging group, and d the aged group. Collagen dispersion reduced with age (a) and with injury except in the aging group (c) and in the aged group, which exhibited neither statistical significance nor trend with injury. Data are presented as mean ± standard error. Significance is denoted by: *** (), ** (), and * ()
Fig. 10With revised constraint of , results of post hoc tests on GOH model’s (preferred fiber direction). Effects of injury on preferred direction within: both aging (b) and aged (c) groups exhibited statistical trend toward decrease post-injury (0–3 weeks), the aged group (c) exhibited statistical significant increase during healing (3–6 weeks). The mature group exhibited neither statistical significance nor trend with injury. Data are presented as mean ± standard error. Significance is denoted by * (); statistically significant trend is denoted by # ()
Fig. 11Results of post hoc tests on FR’s and . a, b Effect of age on of the uninjured subgroups. Age-dependent effects of injury on FR moduli parameters within: c, d the mature group, e, f the aging group, and g, h the aged group. FR’s and decreased with age (a, b) and post-injury except in the aging group (c). The aged group (d) may have exhibited seemingly the best healing capacity to 6 weeks post-injury when compared to the mature group (b). Data are presented as mean ± standard error. Significance is denoted by *** (), ** (), * (), and trend by # ()