Indentation stiffness does not discriminate between normal and degraded articular cartilage
Brown, Cameron P., Crawford, Ross W., & Oloyede, Adekunle (2007) Indentation stiffness does not discriminate between normal and degraded articular cartilage. Clinical Biomechanics, 22(7), pp. 843-848.
Background Relative indentation characteristics are commonly used for distinguishing between normal healthy and degraded cartilage. The application of this parameter in surgical decision making and an appreciation of articular cartilage biomechanics has prompted us to hypothesise that it is difficult to define a reference stiffness to characterise normal articular cartilage.
Method This hypothesis is tested for validity by carrying out biomechanical indentation of articular cartilage samples that are characterised as visually normal and degraded relative to proteoglycan depletion and collagen disruption. Compressive loading was applied at known strain rates to visually normal, artificially degraded and naturally osteoarthritic articular cartilage and observing the trends of their stress-strain and stiffness characteristics.
Findings While our results demonstrated a 25% depreciation in the stiffness of individual samples after proteoglycan depletion, they also showed that when compared to the stiffness of normal samples only 17% lie outside the range of the stress-strain behaviour of normal samples.
Interpretation We conclude that the extent of the variability in the properties of normal samples, and the degree of overlap (81%) of the biomechanical properties of normal and degraded matrices demonstrate that indentation data cannot form an accurate basis for distinguishing normal from abnormal articular cartilage samples with consequences for the application of this mechanical process in the clinical environment.
Impact and interest:
Citation countsare sourced monthly fromand citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
Full-text downloadsdisplays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Subjects:||Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > ENGINEERING (090000) > BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING (090300) > Biomechanical Engineering (090302)|
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > ENGINEERING (090000) > BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING (090300) > Biomedical Engineering not elsewhere classified (090399)
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > ENGINEERING (090000) > BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING (090300) > Biomedical Instrumentation (090303)
|Divisions:||Past > QUT Faculties & Divisions > Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering|
Current > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
|Copyright Owner:||Copyright 2007 Elsevier|
|Copyright Statement:||Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher.|
|Deposited On:||25 Jun 2007|
|Last Modified:||29 Feb 2012 23:32|
Repository Staff Only: item control page