4.3 Article

Static and dynamic biomechanical properties of the regenerating rabbit Achilles tendon

期刊

CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 832-838

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.02.002

关键词

Achilles tendon rupture; regenerating tendon; static biomechanical property; dynamic biomechanical property; viscoelasticity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Since tendons show viscoelastic behavior, dynamic viscoelastic properties should be assessed in addition to static biomechanical properties. We evaluated differences between static and dynamic biomechanical properties of the regenerating rabbit Achilles tendon following tenotomy. Methods. At 3, 6, or 12 weeks after right Achilles tenotomy, the right (regenerating) and left (control) tendons were collected with the calcaneus from 49 rabbits. A unidirectional failure test and a dynamic viscoelastic test were conducted. Findings. Tensile strength and Young's modulus (static biomechanical properties) in the regenerating group at Week 6 were significantly greater than at Week 3, while at Week 12, these were significantly greater than at Week 6. However, even at Week 12, both parameters were less than in the control group. The value of tan 6 represents dynamic viscoelasticity, a smaller tan delta indicates greater elasticity. tan delta for the regenerating group was significantly greater than for the control group at Week 3, but regenerating and control groups did not significantly differ at Week 6. No marked change was seen from Weeks 6 to 12 in the regenerating group, and no significant difference in tan 6 was evident between the regenerating and control groups at Week 12. Interpretation. Dynamic biomechanical properties of regenerating rabbit Achilles tendons may improve more rapidly than static biomechanical properties. Ability to tolerate dynamic movement in the healing Achilles tendon may improve more rapidly than ability to withstand static stresses. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据