posted on 2018-05-18, 08:02authored byNiall 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