Load and failure behavior of human muscle samples in the context of proximal femur replacement

Abstract

BackgroundTo ensure adequate function after orthopedic tumor reconstruction, it is important to reattach the remaining soft tissue to the implant. This study aimed at obtaining mechanical properties of textile muscle-implant and muscle-bone connections in a preliminary test.MethodsTwo groups of soft-tissue attachment were mechanically tested and compared: Native bone-muscle samples obtained from human femora and muscles attached to a prosthetic implant by means of Trevira® attachment tubes. Additionally, muscle samples were tested with muscle fibers aligned parallel and perpendicular to the tension load. A uniaxial load was exerted upon all samples.ResultsFailure loads of 26.7 ± 8.8 N were observed for the native bone-muscle group and of 18.1 ± 9.9 N for the Trevira® group. Elongations of 94.8 ± 36.2 % were observed for the native bone-muscle group and 79.3 ± 51.8 % for the Trevira® group. The location of failure was mainly observed in the central area of the muscle fibers. Muscle fibers with parallel fiber orientation (47.6 ± 11.5 N) yielded higher tensile strength than those with perpendicular fiber orientation (14.8 ± 4.1 N).ConclusionsOur experiments showed that higher forces were transmitted in the origin and insertion areas than in areas of flat soft tissue reconstruction using attachment tubes. The data indicate that the tested material allows reattaching muscles, but without reinforcing the insertion site. Therefore, attachment tubes with region-dependent and potentially anisotropic material behavior might be advantageous to optimize muscle-bone load transmission after surgery, which may allow lower complication rates and shorter physical recovery.

Biomimetic Hierarchically Arranged Nanofibrous Structures Resembling the Architecture and the Passive Mechanical Properties of Skeletal Muscles: A Step Forward Toward Artificial Muscle

“…The lower degree of fiber alignment in bundles causes a delayed straightening and a reduction of the overall stiffness (E A = 37.9 ± 2.3 MPa) with respect to the mats (E A = 58.9 ± 2.5 MPa), both higher than the muscle fiber one (E A = 0.02-1.6 MPa). After yielding the bundles failed at ε F = 104 ± 3%, showing a failure deformation twice as high as that of the mat (ε F = 48.9 ± 6.99%), and comparable to that of the skeletal muscles fibers (30-60%) (Kovanen et al, 1984;Hoang et al, 2007;Kuthe and Uddanwadiker, 2016;Schleifenbaum et al, 2016). The apparent failure stress of the bundle was σ AF = 24.0 ± 1.4 MPa and 13.8 ± 1.5 MPa for the mat, higher than the muscle fiber one (σ AF up to 2 MPa) (Kuthe and Uddanwadiker, 2016).…”

“…However, due to the high variability of muscle tissue and the lack of standards for testing, native muscle mechanical properties reported in the literature vary in a wide range. Calculated through tensile tests on inactivated muscles, the failure stress was reported in a range of 70–800 kPa with a failure strain of 30–60% and an elastic modulus of 30–8000 kPa ( Moss and Halpern, 1977 ; Kovanen et al, 1984 ; Lakie and Robson, 1988 ; Lieber et al, 1991 ; Wolff et al, 2006 ; Hoang et al, 2007 ; Shanshan et al, 2010 ; Schleifenbaum et al, 2016 ).…”

How muscle stiffness affects human body model behavior

“…In Figs. 16 and 17 , effective strain was chosen as injury criterion with a value of 59%, representing the lower limit of the failure threshold of 95 ± 36% [ 58 ]. Therefore, the CSDM calculation might overestimate the muscle and soft tissue injuries.…”

Tissue Engineering for the Insertions of Tendons and Ligaments: An Overview of Electrospun Biomaterials and Structures

“…Cells have to recognize the scaffolds' surface as biomimetic and adhere and proliferate on them. The poor biocompatibility can cause inflammatory processes, which can lead to Reilly and Burstein, 1975;Ashman et al, 1984;Mirzaali et al, 2016 Cancellous (human) 1.7-1624.4 0.06-20.8 0.49-26.8 Lindahl, 1976;Morgan et al, 2003;Matsuura et al, 2008 Tendon (human) 99.6-926 7.3-116 9-55.5 Noyes et al, 1984;Bechtold et al, 1994;Johnson et al, 1994 Ligament (human) 23-724 1-82.8 1.3-164.2 Siegler and Schneck, 1988;Neumann et al, 1992;Pintar et al, 1992;Savelberg et al, 1992 Muscle (human) 0.03-8 0.07-0.8 30-60 Lännergren, 1971;Halpern and Moss, 1976;Moss and Halpern, 1977;Kovanen et al, 1984;Lakie and Robson, 1988;Lieber et al, 1991;Wolff et al, 2006;Hoang et al, 2007;Lv et al, 2010;Kuthe and Uddanwadiker, 2016;Schleifenbaum et al, 2016 Enthesis 3100 2-49 1-61 Deymier et al, 2017;Li et al, 2017;Song et al, 2019;Reifenrath et al, 2020 Supraspinatus (rat) 3.1 ± 0.9 45.7 ± 3.4 4.3 ± 3. infections or foreign-body rejections (Chen et al, 2009; O'Brien, 2011). 2.…”