4.5 Article

Are in vivo and in situ brain tissues mechanically similar?

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
Volume 37, Issue 9, Pages 1339-1352

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2003.12.032

Keywords

indentation; viscoelasticity; constitutive properties; shear modulus; stress relaxation; brain injury

Funding

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01-NS-39679] Funding Source: Medline
  2. ODCDC CDC HHS [R49-CCR-312712] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Brain tissue mechanical properties have been well-characterized in vitro, and were found to be inhomogeneous, nonlinear anisotropic and influenced by neurological development and postmortem time interval prior to testing. However, brain in vivo is a vascularized tissue, and there is a paucity of information regarding the effect of perfusion on brain mechanical propel-ties. Furthermore, mechanical properties are often extracted from preconditioned tissue, and it remains unclear if these properties are representative of non-preconditioned tissue. We present non-preconditioned (NPC) and preconditioned (PC) relaxation responses of porcine brain (N = 10) obtained in vivo, in situ and in vitro, at anterior, mid and posterior regions of the cerebral cortex during 4 mm indentations at either 3 or 1 mm/s. Material property characteristics showed no dependency on the site tested, thus revealing that cortical gray matter on the parietal and frontal lobes can be considered homogenous. In most cases, preconditioning decreased the shear moduli, with a more pronounced effect in the dead (in situ and in vitro) brain. For most conditions, it was found that only the long-term time constant of relaxation (tau > 20 s) significantly decreased from in vivo to in situ modes (p < 0.02), and perfusion had no effect on any other property. These findings support the concept that perfusion does not affect the stiffness of living cortical tissue. (C) 2004 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available