Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Urinary Bladder vs Gastrointestinal Tissue: A Comparative Study of Their Biomechanical Properties for Urinary Tract Reconstruction.
Austin Authors: Davis, Niall F;Mulvihill, J J E;Mulay, S;Cunnane, E M;Bolton, Damien M ;Walsh, M T
Affiliation: School of Engineering, Bernal Institute and the Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
Department of Urology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Issue Date: Mar-2018
Date: 2017-11-29
Publication information: Urology 2018; 113: 235-240
Abstract: To evaluate the mechanical properties of gastrointestinal (GI) tissue segments and to compare them with the urinary bladder for urinary tract reconstruction. 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. 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. 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.
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.11.028
ORCID: 0000-0002-5145-6783
Journal: Urology
PubMed URL: 29197522
Type: Journal Article
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

checked on May 28, 2024

Google ScholarTM


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.