University of Limerick
Browse

Urinary bladder vs gastrointestinal tissue: a comparative study of their biomechanical properties for urinary tract reconstruction

Download (895.1 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2018-05-18, 08:02 authored by Niall Francis Davis, John J.E. Mulvihill, S. Mulay, Eoghan M. Cunnane, D.M. Bolton, Michael T. Walsh
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the mechanical properties of gastrointestinal (GI) tissue segments and to compare them with the urinary bladder for urinary tract reconstruction. METHODS Urinary bladders and GI tissue segments were sourced from porcine models (n = 6, 7 months old [5 male; 1 female]). Uniaxial planar tension tests were performed on bladder tissue, and Cauchy stress-stretch ratio responses were compared with stomach, jejunum, ileum, and colonic GI tissue. RESULTS The biomechanical properties of the bladder differed significantly from jejunum, ileum, and colonic GI tissue. Young modulus (kPa—measure of stiffness) of the GI tissue segments was on average 3.07-fold (±0.21 standard error) higher than bladder tissue (P < .01), and the strain at Cauchy stress of 50 kPa for bladder tissues was on average 2.27-fold (±0.20) higher than GI tissues. There were no significant differences between the averaged stretch ratio and Young modulus of the horizontal and vertical directions of bladder tissue (315.05 ± 49.64 kPa and 283.62 ± 57.04, respectively, P = .42). However, stomach tissues were 1.09- (±0.17) and 0.85- (±0.03) fold greater than bladder tissues for Young modulus and strain at 50 kPa, respectively. CONCLUSION An ideal urinary bladder replacement biomaterial should demonstrate mechanical equivalence to native tissue. Our findings demonstrate that GI tissue does not meet these mechanical requirements. Knowledge on the biomechanical properties of bladder and GI tissue may improve development opportunities for more suitable urologic reconstructive biomaterials.

History

Publication

Urology;113, pp. 235-240

Publisher

Elsevier

Note

peer-reviewed

Rights

This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Urology. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Urology, 2018, 113, pp. 235-240, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.11.028

Language

English

Usage metrics

    University of Limerick

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC