) are described and systematically reviewed for parameters, including strain rate, equilibrium time, and maximum strain. This systematic analysis revealed considerable variability in testing methods. Our validation testing studies showed that such variations in testing criteria could have large implications on reported outcome parameters (e.g., modulus) and the interpretation of findings from these studies. This analysis is carried out for all common testing methods, followed by a discussion of less common trends and directions in the mechanical evaluation of cartilage tissues and constructs. Overall, this work may serve as a guide for cartilage tissue engineers seeking to rigorously evaluate the physical properties of their novel treatment strategies. Impact Statement Articular cartilage tissue engineering has made significant strides with regard to treatments and replacements for injured tissue. The evaluation of these approaches typically involves mechanical testing, yet the plethora of testing techniques makes comparisons between studies difficult, and often leads to misinterpretation of data compared with native tissue. This study serves as a guide for the mechanical testing of cartilage tissues and constructs, highlighting recent trends in test conditions and validating these common procedures. Cartilage tissue engineers, especially those unfamiliar with mechanical testing protocols, will benefit from this study in their quest to physically evaluate novel treatment and regeneration approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patel et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: