Mechanical study of polyurethane elastomer and Medpor as the material of artificial auricular scaffold_Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

Authors：

LIU Ge , WANG Qian ,  YANG Qinghua , ZHANG Ling , DONG Weiwei , LIU Ying , GUO Rui , HAN Jingjian

Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100144, P.R.China;

Corresponding?author：

YANG Qinghua, Email: yqh114502@sina.com

Keywords：

Polyurethane; Medpor; artificial auricular scaffold; biomechanics

DOI：

10.7507/1002-1892.201807004

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective By comparing the mechanics of human auricular cartilage, polyurethane elastic material, and high density polyethylene material (Medpor), to produce theoretical proof on choosing optimal artificial auricular scaffold materials.Methods The experimental materials were divided into 3 groups with 6 samples in each: the auricular cartilage group (group A), the polyurethane elastic material group (group B), and the Medpor group (group C). With an Instron5967 mechanical testing machine, compression and tensile testing were performed to respectively measure values of compression parameters (including yield stress, yield load, elastic modulus, yield compressibility, compressibility within 2 MPa, and compression stress within 10% strain) and values of tensile parameters (including yield stress, yield load, elastic modulus, yield elongation, elongation within 2 MPa, tensile stress within 1% strain) for comparison.Results Compression testing: no obvious yield points were observed in the whole process in samples of group B, while obvious yield points were observed in samples of groups A and C. There was no significant difference between groups A and C with respect to yield stress and yield load (P>0.05); while the yield compressibility in group C was significantly lower than that in group A (P<0.05) and the elastic modulus in group C was significantly higher than that in group A (P<0.05). There was a significant difference with respect to compressibility within 2 MPa of materials among the 3 groups (P<0.05), the high, medium, and low values go to groups B, A, and C respectively. The compression stress within 10% strain in group C was significantly higher than that in groups A and B (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between that in groups A and B (P>0.05). Tensile testing: the materials in group B had extremely high tensile strength. The yield stress in groups A and B was significantly higher than that in group C (P<0.05), and the elastic modulus and tensile stress within 1% strain were significantly lower than those in group C (P<0.05); but no significant difference was found between those in groups A and B (P>0.05). There was no significant difference with respect to yield load among the 3 groups (P>0.05); but there was significant difference with respect to yield elongation among the 3 groups (P<0.05), and the high, medium, and low values go to groups B, A, and C respectively. The elongation within 2 MPa in group B was significantly higher than that in groups A and C (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between that in groups A and C (P>0.05).Conclusion Compared with the Medpor, the polyurethane elastic material is a more ideal artificial auricular scaffold material.

Citation： LIU Ge, WANG Qian, YANG Qinghua, ZHANG Ling, DONG Weiwei, LIU Ying, GUO Rui, HAN Jingjian. Mechanical study of polyurethane elastomer and Medpor as the material of artificial auricular scaffold. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2019, 33(4): 492-496. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.201807004 Copy

1.	Kim YS, Yun IS, Chung S. Salvage of ear framework exposure in total auricular reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg, 2017, 78(2): 178-183.
2.	Ali K, Trost JG, Truong TA, et al. Total ear reconstruction using porous polyethylene. Semin Plast Surg, 2017, 31(3): 161-172.
3.	Jung SY, Lee SJ, Kim HY, et al. 3D printed polyurethane prosthesis for partial tracheal reconstruction: a pilot animal study. Biofabrication, 2016, 8(4): 045015.
4.	Pinchuk L. A review of the biostability and carcinogenicity of polyurethanes in medicine and the new generation of ‘biostable’ polyurethanes. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed, 1994, 6(3): 225-267.
5.	肖原, 張杰, 陸燕蓉, 等. 聚氨酯-脫細胞基質復合支架的制備及體內外生物相容性研究. 中國修復重建外科雜志, 2015, 29(8): 1016-1021.
6.	Agnol LD, Gonzalez Dias FT, Nicoletti NF, et al. Polyurethane as a strategy for annulus fibrosus repair and regeneration: a systematic review. Regen Med, 2018, 13(5): 611-626.
7.	張東力, 劉文, 吳向東, 等. 新型納米羥基磷灰石/聚氨酯復合材料治療慢性骨髓炎的實驗研究. 中國修復重建外科雜志, 2018, 32(7): 880-886.
8.	陳兵, 高學宏, 徐達傳, 等. 全耳再造的解剖學基礎研究. 中國臨床解剖學雜志, 2002, 20(4): 250-252.
9.	Mow VC, Guo XE. Mechano-electrochemical properties of articular cartilage: their inhomogeneities and anisotropies. Annu Rev Biomed Eng, 2002, 4: 175-209.
10.	Zopf DA, Flanagan CL, Nasser HB, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of human and porcine auricular cartilage. Laryngoscope, 2015, 125(8): E262-E268.
11.	Griffin MF, Premakumar Y, Seifalian AM, et al. Biomechanical characterisation of the human auricular cartilages; implications for tissue engineering. Ann Biomed Eng, 2016, 44(12): 3460-3467.
12.	Alizadeh-Osgouei M, Li Y, Wen C. A comprehensive review of biodegradable synthetic polymer-ceramic composites and their manufacture for biomedical applications. Bioact Mater, 2018, 4(1): 22-36.
13.	Charles LF, Shaw MT, Olson JR, et al. Fabrication and mechanical properties of PLLA/PCL/HA composites via a biomimetic, dip coating, and hot compression procedure. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2010, 21(6): 1845-1854.
14.	Raeisdasteh Hokmabad V, Davaran S, Ramazani A, et al. Design and fabrication of porous biodegradable scaffolds: a strategy for tissue engineering. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed, 2017, 28(16): 1797-1825.
15.	蔡江瑜, 蔣佳, 莫秀梅, 等. 絲素蛋白/聚乳酸-聚己內酯納米纖維支架對兔腱-骨愈合影響的實驗研究. 中國修復重建外科雜志, 2017, 31(8): 957-962.
16.	Nimeskern L, van Osch GJ, Müller R, et al. Quantitative evaluation of mechanical properties in tissue-engineered auricular cartilage. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2014, 20(1): 17-27.
17.	Stephan S, Reinisch J. Auricular Reconstruction Using Porous Polyethylene Implant Technique. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am, 2018, 26(1): 69-85.
18.	Lewin S. Complications after total porous implant ear reconstruction and their management. Facial Plast Surg, 2015, 31(6): 617-625.

1. Kim YS, Yun IS, Chung S. Salvage of ear framework exposure in total auricular reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg, 2017, 78(2): 178-183.
2. Ali K, Trost JG, Truong TA, et al. Total ear reconstruction using porous polyethylene. Semin Plast Surg, 2017, 31(3): 161-172.
3. Jung SY, Lee SJ, Kim HY, et al. 3D printed polyurethane prosthesis for partial tracheal reconstruction: a pilot animal study. Biofabrication, 2016, 8(4): 045015.
4. Pinchuk L. A review of the biostability and carcinogenicity of polyurethanes in medicine and the new generation of ‘biostable’ polyurethanes. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed, 1994, 6(3): 225-267.
5. 肖原, 張杰, 陸燕蓉, 等. 聚氨酯-脫細胞基質復合支架的制備及體內外生物相容性研究. 中國修復重建外科雜志, 2015, 29(8): 1016-1021.
6. Agnol LD, Gonzalez Dias FT, Nicoletti NF, et al. Polyurethane as a strategy for annulus fibrosus repair and regeneration: a systematic review. Regen Med, 2018, 13(5): 611-626.
7. 張東力, 劉文, 吳向東, 等. 新型納米羥基磷灰石/聚氨酯復合材料治療慢性骨髓炎的實驗研究. 中國修復重建外科雜志, 2018, 32(7): 880-886.
8. 陳兵, 高學宏, 徐達傳, 等. 全耳再造的解剖學基礎研究. 中國臨床解剖學雜志, 2002, 20(4): 250-252.
9. Mow VC, Guo XE. Mechano-electrochemical properties of articular cartilage: their inhomogeneities and anisotropies. Annu Rev Biomed Eng, 2002, 4: 175-209.
10. Zopf DA, Flanagan CL, Nasser HB, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of human and porcine auricular cartilage. Laryngoscope, 2015, 125(8): E262-E268.
11. Griffin MF, Premakumar Y, Seifalian AM, et al. Biomechanical characterisation of the human auricular cartilages; implications for tissue engineering. Ann Biomed Eng, 2016, 44(12): 3460-3467.
12. Alizadeh-Osgouei M, Li Y, Wen C. A comprehensive review of biodegradable synthetic polymer-ceramic composites and their manufacture for biomedical applications. Bioact Mater, 2018, 4(1): 22-36.
13. Charles LF, Shaw MT, Olson JR, et al. Fabrication and mechanical properties of PLLA/PCL/HA composites via a biomimetic, dip coating, and hot compression procedure. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2010, 21(6): 1845-1854.
14. Raeisdasteh Hokmabad V, Davaran S, Ramazani A, et al. Design and fabrication of porous biodegradable scaffolds: a strategy for tissue engineering. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed, 2017, 28(16): 1797-1825.
15. 蔡江瑜, 蔣佳, 莫秀梅, 等. 絲素蛋白/聚乳酸-聚己內酯納米纖維支架對兔腱-骨愈合影響的實驗研究. 中國修復重建外科雜志, 2017, 31(8): 957-962.
16. Nimeskern L, van Osch GJ, Müller R, et al. Quantitative evaluation of mechanical properties in tissue-engineered auricular cartilage. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2014, 20(1): 17-27.
17. Stephan S, Reinisch J. Auricular Reconstruction Using Porous Polyethylene Implant Technique. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am, 2018, 26(1): 69-85.
18. Lewin S. Complications after total porous implant ear reconstruction and their management. Facial Plast Surg, 2015, 31(6): 617-625.

Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

Mechanical study of polyurethane elastomer and Medpor as the material of artificial auricular scaffold

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content