4.7 Article

The influence of cross-sectional morphology on the compressive resistance of polymeric nerve conduits

Journal

POLYMER
Volume 148, Issue -, Pages 93-100

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2018.06.022

Keywords

Polymeric nerve conduits; Porous morphology; Porosity; Layered microstructure; Compressive resistance

Funding

  1. Key Research and Development Program of Zhejiang Province [2017C01063]
  2. Natural Foundation of Ningbo [2017A610183, 2015A610207]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Artificial nerve conduits are proposed as an alternative to repair peripheral nerves injuries; while mechanical properties are of great importance for successful clinical application of nerve conduits. In this work, the poly (D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) nerve conduits were fabricated by the dry-jet wet spinning, and the compressive resistance of nerve conduits was systematically measured. It was found that the compressive resistance of nerve conduits significantly increased with the PLGA concentration of dope fluids. A numerical model was developed to simulate the compression tests of nerve conduits; where the hyperelastic-plastic constitutive law and the morphological characters of the cross sections of nerve conduits were implemented. The numerical results indicated the layered morphology of the cross sections of nerve conduits played the most important role in determining the compressive resistance. In addition, the accuracy of the numerical model was well validated by good agreement of experimental and numerical results of nerve conduit compression tests. This study helps understanding how to characterize the compressive resistance of porous polymeric nerve conduits and how the morphology influences the compressive resistance, leading to better design of fabrication setup and material selection for nerve conduits. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available