Urinary Bladder vs Gastrointestinal Tissue: A Comparative Study of Their Biomechanical Properties for Urinary Tract Reconstruction.

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.

[1]  Stephen F Badylak,et al.  An overview of tissue and whole organ decellularization processes. , 2011, Biomaterials.

[2]  E. Cheng,et al.  Tissue engineering in urology. , 2013, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.

[3]  S. O'Leary,et al.  Comparison of methods used to measure the thickness of soft tissues and their influence on the evaluation of tensile stress. , 2013, Journal of biomechanics.

[4]  M. Nakazono,et al.  Biodegradable material for bladder reconstruction. , 1975, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[5]  A. E. Ehret,et al.  A novel experimental procedure based on pure shear testing of dermatome-cut samples applied to porcine skin , 2011, Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology.

[6]  R. Ogden,et al.  Hyperelastic modelling of arterial layers with distributed collagen fibre orientations , 2006, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[7]  H. Kudish The use of polyvinyl sponge for experimental cystoplasty. , 1957, The Journal of urology.

[8]  A. Callanan,et al.  Porcine extracellular matrix scaffolds in reconstructive urology: An ex vivo comparative study of their biomechanical properties. , 2011, Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials.

[9]  On the mechanical behaviour of carotid artery plaques: the influence of curve-fitting experimental data on numerical model results , 2013, Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology.

[10]  Silvia Todros,et al.  Experimental investigation of the biomechanics of urethral tissues and structures , 2016, Experimental physiology.

[11]  E. McGuire,et al.  Long‐term results and complications using augmentation cystoplasty in reconstructive urology , 1995, Neurourology and urodynamics.

[12]  M. Walsh,et al.  Mechanical, biological and structural characterization of in vitro ruptured human carotid plaque tissue. , 2013, Acta biomaterialia.

[13]  Stephen F Badylak,et al.  Decellularization of tissues and organs. , 2006, Biomaterials.

[14]  G. Holzapfel,et al.  Uniaxial tensile testing approaches for characterisation of atherosclerotic plaques. , 2014, Journal of biomechanics.

[15]  R. D. De Filippo,et al.  Autologous cell seeded biodegradable scaffold for augmentation cystoplasty: phase II study in children and adolescents with spina bifida. , 2014, The Journal of urology.