FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / J Biomech Eng / Comparison Between the Hyperelastic Behavior of Fresh and Fr...
Journal of biomechanical engineering2019; 142(2); 0245011-0245016; doi: 10.1115/1.4044031

Comparison Between the Hyperelastic Behavior of Fresh and Frozen Equine Articular Cartilage in Various Joints.

Abstract: Fresh and frozen cartilage samples of the fetlock, carpus, and stifle were collected from 12 deceased horses. Half were measured immediately following extraction, and half were frozen for seven days and then measured. Seven indentations (various normalized displacements) were implemented with an indention rate of 0.1 mm/s. Solid phase aggregate modulus (Es), hyperelastic material constant (α), and fluid load fraction (F') of equine articular cartilage were assessed using the Ogden hyperelastic model. The properties were statistically compared in various joints (fetlock, carpus, and stifle), and between fresh and frozen samples using various statistical models. There was no statistical difference between the fetlock and carpus in the aggregate modulus (p = 0.5084), while both were significantly different from the stifle (fetlock: p = 0.0017 and carpus: p = 0.0406). For the hyperelastic material constant, no statistical differences between joints were observed (p = 0.3310). For the fluid load fraction, the fetlock and stifle comparison showed a difference (p = 0.0333), while the carpus was not different from the fetlock (p = 0.1563) or stifle (p = 0.3862). Comparison between the fresh and frozen articular cartilage demonstrated no significant difference among the joints in the three material properties: p = 0.9418, p = 0.7031, and p = 0.9313 for the aggregate modulus, the hyperelastic material constant, and the fluid load fraction, respectively.
Copyright © 2020 by ASME.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2019-06-16 PubMed ID: 31201742PubMed Central: PMC7104741DOI: 10.1115/1.4044031Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research focuses on the differences in hyperelastic behavior between fresh and frozen horse joint cartilage. The study found no significant variation in the material properties of the joint cartilage, such as the solid phase aggregate modulus, the hyperelastic material constant, and the fluid load fraction, regardless of whether the cartilage was fresh or had been frozen.

Material and Method

  • The research involved the collection of cartilage samples from various joints (fetlock, carpus, and stifle) of 12 dead horses. Half of the samples were studied immediately, while the other half were frozen for a week before the study.
  • To measure and compare the properties, the researchers made seven indentations, or impressions, on the cartilage with normalized displacements using an indention rate of 0.1mm/s.

Main Focus and Techniques Used

  • The study primarily explored the hyperelastic behavior of the equine articular cartilage. Hyperelastic materials are rubber-like substances that can stretch exponentially without breaking and recover to their former shape when the load is removed.
  • The research used the Ogden hyperelastic model, a non-linear elastic model, to assess the solid phase aggregate modulus (Es), the hyperelastic material constant (α), and the fluid load fraction (F’) of the cartilage.

Important Findings

  • Comparison of fetlock and carpus did not display significant variation in terms of the aggregate modulus, which is a measure of a substance’s resistance to uniform pressure. Both the fetlock and carpus, however, differed significantly from the stifle joint.
  • No differences were noted between the joints when evaluating the hyperelastic material constant (α), a value that gives information about the elasticity and flexibility of the material.
  • For the fluid load fraction, a parameter that indicates how the load is distributed between the solid and fluid components of the cartilage, a difference was observed between the fetlock and stifle. But, the carpus was not different from either.
  • Notably, there was no significant difference between fresh and frozen articular cartilage in all evaluated material properties, suggesting that the freezing process does not alter these qualities.

Cite This Article

APA
Lee H, Campbell WD, Theis KM, Canning ME, Ennis HY, Jackson RL, Hanson RR. (2019). Comparison Between the Hyperelastic Behavior of Fresh and Frozen Equine Articular Cartilage in Various Joints. J Biomech Eng, 142(2), 0245011-0245016. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4044031

Publication

Journal of biomechanical engineering
ISSN: 1528-8951
NlmUniqueID: 7909584
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 142
Issue: 2
Pages: 0245011-0245016
PII: 024501

Researcher Affiliations

Lee, Hyeon
  • Department of Mechanical Engineering, Samuel Ginn College of Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849; Department of Mechanical Engineering, Virginia Tech, 460 Old Turner Street (MC 0710), 100S Randolph Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061.
Campbell, William D
  • Department of Mechanical Engineering, Samuel Ginn College of Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849.
Theis, Kelcie M
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849.
Canning, Margaret E
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn 36849, AL.
Ennis, Hannah Y
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn 36849, AL.
Jackson, Robert L
  • Department of Mechanical Engineering, Samuel Ginn College of Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849.
Hanson, R Reid
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn 36849, AL.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Biomechanical Phenomena
  • Cartilage, Articular
  • Horses
  • Joints

References

This article includes 42 references
  1. Bae WC, Temple MM, Amiel D, Coutts RD, Niederauer GG, Sah RL. Indentation testing of human cartilage: sensitivity to articular surface degeneration.. Arthritis Rheum 2003 Dec;48(12):3382-94.
    doi: 10.1002/art.11347pubmed: 14673990google scholar: lookup
  2. Lu XL, Sun DD, Guo XE, Chen FH, Lai WM, Mow VC. Indentation determined mechanoelectrochemical properties and fixed charge density of articular cartilage.. Ann Biomed Eng 2004 Mar;32(3):370-9.
    doi: 10.1023/B:ABME.0000017534.06921.24pubmed: 15095811google scholar: lookup
  3. Mak AF, Lai WM, Mow VC. Biphasic indentation of articular cartilage--I. Theoretical analysis.. J Biomech 1987;20(7):703-14.
    doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(87)90036-4pubmed: 3654668google scholar: lookup
  4. Mow VC, Kuei SC, Lai WM, Armstrong CG. Biphasic creep and stress relaxation of articular cartilage in compression? Theory and experiments.. J Biomech Eng 1980 Feb;102(1):73-84.
    doi: 10.1115/1.3138202pubmed: 7382457google scholar: lookup
  5. Simha NK, Jin H, Hall ML, Chiravarambath S, Lewis JL. Effect of indenter size on elastic modulus of cartilage measured by indentation.. J Biomech Eng 2007 Oct;129(5):767-75.
    doi: 10.1115/1.2768110pubmed: 17887903google scholar: lookup
  6. Murray RC, Zhu CF, Goodship AE, Lakhani KH, Agrawal CM, Athanasiou KA. Exercise affects the mechanical properties and histological appearance of equine articular cartilage.. J Orthop Res 1999 Sep;17(5):725-31.
    doi: 10.1002/jor.1100170516pubmed: 10569483google scholar: lookup
  7. Frisbie DD, Cross MW, McIlwraith CW. A comparative study of articular cartilage thickness in the stifle of animal species used in human pre-clinical studies compared to articular cartilage thickness in the human knee.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2006;19(3):142-6.
    doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1632990pubmed: 16971996google scholar: lookup
  8. Lee H, Theis KM, Jackson RL, Hanson RR. Equine Articular Cartilage Stiffness Determination Using Indentation. ASME J. Tribol. 2014, 137(1), p. 011201.
    doi: 10.1115/1.4028285google scholar: lookup
  9. Mow VC, Gibbs MC, Lai WM, Zhu WB, Athanasiou KA. Biphasic indentation of articular cartilage--II. A numerical algorithm and an experimental study.. J Biomech 1989;22(8-9):853-61.
    doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(89)90069-9pubmed: 2613721google scholar: lookup
  10. Bonnevie ED, Baro V, Wang L, Burris DL. In-situ studies of cartilage microtribology: roles of speed and contact area.. Tribol Lett 2011 Jan;41(1):83-95.
    doi: 10.1007/s11249-010-9687-0pmc: PMC3134967pubmed: 21765622google scholar: lookup
  11. DiSilvestro MR, Suh JK. A cross-validation of the biphasic poroviscoelastic model of articular cartilage in unconfined compression, indentation, and confined compression.. J Biomech 2001 Apr;34(4):519-25.
    doi: 10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00224-4pubmed: 11266676google scholar: lookup
  12. Lu XL, Miller C, Chen FH, Guo XE, Mow VC. The generalized triphasic correspondence principle for simultaneous determination of the mechanical properties and proteoglycan content of articular cartilage by indentation.. J Biomech 2007;40(11):2434-41.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.11.015pubmed: 17222852google scholar: lookup
  13. Merkher Y, Sivan S, Etsion I, Maroudas A, Halperin G, Yosef A. A Rational Friction Test Using a Human Cartilage on-Cartilage Arrangement. Tribol. Lett. 2006, 22(1), pp. 29–36.
    doi: 10.1007/s11249-006-9069-9google scholar: lookup
  14. Verberne G, Merkher Y, Halperin G, Maroudas A, Etsion I. Techniques for Assessment of Wear Between Human Cartilage Surfaces. Wear 2009, 266(11–12), pp. 1216–1223.
    doi: 10.1016/j.wear.2009.03.042google scholar: lookup
  15. Kennedy EA, Tordonado DS, Duma SM. Effects of freezing on the mechanical properties of articular cartilage.. Biomed Sci Instrum 2007;43:342-7.
    pubmed: 17487105
  16. Schachar NS, McGann LE. Investigations of low-temperature storage of articular cartilage for transplantation.. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986 Jul;(208):146-50.
    pubmed: 3720115
  17. Szarko M, Muldrew K, Bertram JE. Freeze-thaw treatment effects on the dynamic mechanical properties of articular cartilage.. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010 Oct 8;11:231.
    doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-231pmc: PMC2958988pubmed: 20932309google scholar: lookup
  18. Tavakol K, Miller RG, Bazett-Jones DP, Hwang WS, McGann LE, Schachar NS. Ultrastructural changes of articular cartilage chondrocytes associated with freeze-thawing.. J Orthop Res 1993 Jan;11(1):1-9.
    doi: 10.1002/jor.1100110102pubmed: 7678644google scholar: lookup
  19. McIlwraith CW, Fortier LA, Frisbie DD, Nixon AJ. Equine Models of Articular Cartilage Repair.. Cartilage 2011 Oct;2(4):317-26.
    doi: 10.1177/1947603511406531pmc: PMC4297134pubmed: 26069590google scholar: lookup
  20. Lee H, Campbell WD, Canning ME, Theis KM, Ennis HY, Jackson RL, Wright JC, Hanson RR. Correlation Between Signalment and the Biphasic Hyperelastic Mechanical Properties of Equine Articular Cartilage. Biotribology 2016, 7, pp. 31–37.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biotri.2016.07.001google scholar: lookup
  21. Lee H, Kirkland WG, Whitmore RN, Theis KM, Young HE, Richardson AJ, Jackson RL, Hanson RR. Comparison of equine articular cartilage thickness in various joints.. Connect Tissue Res 2014 Oct-Dec;55(5-6):339-47.
    doi: 10.3109/03008207.2014.949698pubmed: 25111191google scholar: lookup
  22. Lin DC, Shreiber DI, Dimitriadis EK, Horkay F. Spherical indentation of soft matter beyond the Hertzian regime: numerical and experimental validation of hyperelastic models.. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2009 Oct;8(5):345-58.
    doi: 10.1007/s10237-008-0139-9pmc: PMC3615644pubmed: 18979205google scholar: lookup
  23. Johnson KL. Contact Mechanics. 1987.
  24. Jackson RL, Ghaednia H, Lee H, Rostami A, Wang X. Contact Mechanics. 2013.
  25. Komvopoulos K. Elastic-Plastic Finite Element Analysis of Indented Layered Media. ASME J. Tribol. 1989, 111(3), pp. 430–439.
    doi: 10.1115/1.3261943google scholar: lookup
  26. Yu H, Sanday S, Rath B. The Effect of Substrate on the Elastic Properties of Films Determined by the Indentation Test—Axisymmetric Boussinesq Problem. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1990, 38(6), pp. 745–764.
    doi: 10.1016/0022-5096(90)90038-6google scholar: lookup
  27. Bonnevie ED, Baro VJ, Wang L, Burris DL. Fluid load support during localized indentation of cartilage with a spherical probe.. J Biomech 2012 Apr 5;45(6):1036-41.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.12.019pmc: PMC3547676pubmed: 22284430google scholar: lookup
  28. Holmes MH, Mow VC. The nonlinear characteristics of soft gels and hydrated connective tissues in ultrafiltration.. J Biomech 1990;23(11):1145-56.
    doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(90)90007-Ppubmed: 2277049google scholar: lookup
  29. Deneweth JM, McLean SG, Arruda EM. Evaluation of hyperelastic models for the non-linear and non-uniform high strain-rate mechanics of tibial cartilage.. J Biomech 2013 Jun 21;46(10):1604-10.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.04.014pubmed: 23669276google scholar: lookup
  30. García JJ, Cortés DH. A nonlinear biphasic viscohyperelastic model for articular cartilage.. J Biomech 2006;39(16):2991-8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.10.017pubmed: 16316659google scholar: lookup
  31. Wu JZ, Herzog W. Finite element simulation of location- and time-dependent mechanical behavior of chondrocytes in unconfined compression tests.. Ann Biomed Eng 2000 Mar;28(3):318-30.
    doi: 10.1114/1.271pubmed: 10784096google scholar: lookup
  32. Dyce KM, Sack WO, Wensing CJG. Textbook of Veterinary Anatomy. 2009.
  33. Clayton HM, Lanovaz JL, Schamhardt HC, van Wessum R. The effects of a rider's mass on ground reaction forces and fetlock kinematics at the trot.. Equine Vet J Suppl 1999 Jul;(30):218-21.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb05221.xpubmed: 10659255google scholar: lookup
  34. Williams J. Engineering Tribology. 2005.
  35. Lee H. A Comparison Between the Mechanical Behaviors of Different Equine Articular Cartilage Surfaces. 2013.
  36. Stemper BD, Yoganandan N, Stineman MR, Gennarelli TA, Baisden JL, Pintar FA. Mechanics of fresh, refrigerated, and frozen arterial tissue.. J Surg Res 2007 May 15;139(2):236-42.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2006.09.001pubmed: 17303171google scholar: lookup
  37. Nisolle M, Casanas-Roux F, Qu J, Motta P, Donnez J. Histologic and ultrastructural evaluation of fresh and frozen-thawed human ovarian xenografts in nude mice.. Fertil Steril 2000 Jul;74(1):122-9.
    doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00548-3pubmed: 10899508google scholar: lookup
  38. Karlsson JO, Toner M. Long-term storage of tissues by cryopreservation: critical issues.. Biomaterials 1996 Feb;17(3):243-56.
    doi: 10.1016/0142-9612(96)85562-1pubmed: 8745321google scholar: lookup
  39. Kiefer GN, Sundby K, McAllister D, Shrive NG, Frank CB, Lam T, Schachar NS. The effect of cryopreservation on the biomechanical behavior of bovine articular cartilage.. J Orthop Res 1989;7(4):494-501.
    doi: 10.1002/jor.1100070406pubmed: 2738767google scholar: lookup
  40. Moa-Anderson BJ, Costa KD, Hung CT, Ateshian GA. Bovine Articular Cartilage Surface Topography and Roughness in Fresh Versus Frozen Tissue Samples Using Atomic Force Microscopy. Summer Bioengineering Conference 2003, Key Biscayne, FL, June 25–29, pp. 0561–0562.
  41. Tomford WW, Fredericks GR, Mankin HJ. Studies on cryopreservation of articular cartilage chondrocytes.. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984 Feb;66(2):253-9.
    doi: 10.2106/00004623-198466020-00012pubmed: 6693452google scholar: lookup
  42. Willett TL, Whiteside R, Wild PM, Wyss UP, Anastassiades T. Artefacts in the mechanical characterization of porcine articular cartilage due to freezing.. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2005;219(1):23-9.
    doi: 10.1243/095441105X9200pubmed: 15777054google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. He J, Wine I, Wu K, Sevick J, Laouar L, Jomha NM, Westover L. Effect of vitrification on mechanical properties of porcine articular cartilage. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2022 Oct;236(10):1521-1527.
    doi: 10.1177/09544119221122066pubmed: 36169308google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.