TY - JOUR
T1 - Urinary Bladder vs Gastrointestinal Tissue
T2 - A Comparative Study of Their Biomechanical Properties for Urinary Tract Reconstruction
AU - Davis, N. F.
AU - Mulvihill, J. J.E.
AU - Mulay, S.
AU - Cunnane, E. M.
AU - Bolton, D. M.
AU - Walsh, M. T.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2018/3
Y1 - 2018/3
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044031924&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2017.11.028
DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2017.11.028
M3 - Article
C2 - 29197522
AN - SCOPUS:85044031924
SN - 0090-4295
VL - 113
SP - 235
EP - 240
JO - Urology
JF - Urology
ER -