| Literature DB >> 34840699 |
E Rizzuto1, R De Luca1, A Musarò2, Z Del Prete1.
Abstract
Elastography is a noninvasive imaging technique that provides information on soft tissue stiffness. Young's modulus is typically used to characterize soft tissues' response to the applied force, as soft tissues are often considered linear elastic, isotropic, and quasi-incompressible materials. This approximation is reasonable for small strains, but soft tissues undergo large deformations also for small values of force and exhibit nonlinear elastic behavior. Outside the linear regime, the elastic modulus is dependent on the strain level and is different for any kind of tissue. The aim of this study was to characterize, ex vivo, the mechanical response of two different mice muscles to an external force. A system for transverse force-controlled uniaxial compression enabled obtaining the stress-strain (σ-ε) curve of the samples. The strain-dependent Young's modulus (SYM) model was adopted to reproduce muscle compression behavior and to predict the elastic modulus for large deformations. After that, a recursive linear model was employed to identify the initial linear region of the σ-ε curve. Results showed that both muscle types exhibited a strain hardening effect and that the SYM model provided good fitting of the entire σ-ε curves. The application of the recursive linear model allowed capturing the initial linear region in which the approximation of these tissues as linear elastic materials is reasonable. The residual analysis displayed that even if the SYM model better summarizes the muscle behavior on the entire region, the linear model is more precise when considering only the initial part of the σ-ε curve.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34840699 PMCID: PMC8612782 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5579232
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Example of images of a TA muscle acquired by the optical system. The indentor and the lever arm of the actuator/transducer were also captured. (a) Precompression image: h is the length of the circular piston. (b) Image acquired after a preload of 8 mN was applied: w0 is the initial length of the sample in the cross-fiber direction.
Figure 2Mean (solid line) and standard deviation (dotted line) of the experimental strain-stress curve for the TA (grey) and EDL (black) groups of samples. Average data are expressed as mean ± SD. n: 5 TA and 6 EDL.
R 2 values of exponential models and the corresponding maximum value of the reconstructed Young's modulus for TA and EDL specimens.
| Mouse | TA | EDL | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | 0.9992 | 138.65 | 0.9984 | 75.33 |
| 2 | 0.9996 | 130.34 | 0.9976 | 87.98 |
| 3 | 0.9994 | 121.69 | 0.9963 | 80.59 |
| 4 | 0.9994 | 118.62 | 0.9989 | 105.64 |
| 5 | 0.9974 | 101.61 | 0.9973 | 70.58 |
| 6 | — | — | 0.9987 | 97.06 |
| Average | 122.18 ± 13.91 | 86.20 ± 13.36 | ||
Data reported here refer to the whole loading profile. Average data are expressed as mean ± SD. p < 0.01 versus EDL.
Figure 3(a) Experimental stress-strain curve of one TA specimen (solid) and the corresponding exponential fitting model curve (dotted). (b) Reconstructed Young's modulus as a function of the strain level.
R 2 values of the linear model for TA and EDL specimens in the initial region of the stress-strain curve.
| Mouse | TA | EDL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | 0.9909 | 52.29 | 8.37 | 0.991 | 37.18 | 16.11 |
| 2 | 0.9897 | 56.73 | 7.05 | 0.9954 | 36.84 | 12.61 |
| 3 | 0.9878 | 29.56 | 8.61 | 0.9913 | 26.24 | 14.45 |
| 4 | 0.9866 | 25.71 | 6.52 | 0.9944 | 38.55 | 11.14 |
| 5 | 0.9813 | 29.29 | 10.39 | 0.9898 | 24.07 | 14.97 |
| 6 | — | — | — | 0.9855 | 37.89 | 10.28 |
| Average | 38.72 ± 14.58 | 8.18 ± 1.51 | 33.46 ± 6.50 | 13.26 ± 2.29 | ||
p < 0.01 versus EDL.
Figure 4Example of fitting curves (dotted grey: SYM model; solid grey: linear model) and experimental data (black) for an EDL specimen.
Residuals (Pa) of the linear model and the SYM model in the initial linear region of the stress-strain curve.
| Mouse | TA | EDL | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear model | SYM model | Linear model | SYM model | |
| 1 | 148.52 ± 87.21 | 243.35 ± 186.80 | 235.71 ± 122.02 | 323.63 ± 194.28 |
| 2 | 127.71 ± 71.76 | 182.12 ± 102.46 | 137.22 ± 86.71 | 437.38 ± 299.13 |
| 3 | 134.46 ± 79.46 | 194.83 ± 150.90 | 136.97 ± 90.39 | 558.88 ± 334.03 |
| 4 | 60.77 ± 49.94 | 264.03 ± 162.52 | 137.65 ± 104.61 | 287.49 ± 221.99 |
| 5 | 120.23 ± 74.62 | 448.04 ± 250.97 | 99.56 ± 80.81 | 440.18 ± 313.01 |
| 6 | — | — | 149.56 ± 105.60 | 328.61 ± 189.40 |
Average data are expressed as mean ± SD. p < 0.01, p < 0.001, and p < 0.0001 versus the linear model.
Figure 5Example of a residual analysis for an EDL specimen (n: 2 in Table 2) computed in the initial linear region for the two applied models (a) and their frequency distribution (b).