Tribological and material properties for cartilage of and throughout the bovine stifle: support for the altered joint kinematics hypothesis of osteoarthritis A.C. Moore, D.L. Burris Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 161-169 (January 2015) DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2014.09.021 Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions
Fig. 1 Definitions of sample sites within the bovine stifle and the regions classified for purposes of comparison. Left: the frontal plane view of a bovine stifle joint. Center: the sagittal plane view for three flexion angles in which different samples experience cartilage–cartilage contact. Right: sampling locations on the femoral condyles and tibial plateau. The comparisons of interest are the femoral condyles vs tibial plateau, medial vs lateral, and outer femoral condyles (O) vs central femoral condyles (C) vs inner femoral condyles (I) vs shielded tibial plateau (S) vs uncovered tibial plateau (U). Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2015 23, 161-169DOI: (10.1016/j.joca.2014.09.021) Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions
Fig. 2 Illustration of the custom microtribometer used to measure the material and functional properties of bovine articular cartilage. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2015 23, 161-169DOI: (10.1016/j.joca.2014.09.021) Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions
Fig. 3 Representative data to illustrate the characterization of material properties. Left: force verses displacement curves for nominal speeds of 50, 0.5, 5, 20, and 10 μm/s, in that randomized order for a representative high functioning sample. Following the last indent the stage is held fixed until equilibrium is reached. The equilibrium contact modulus is obtained directly from that point and the dotted line represents the predicted Hertzian relationship between force and deformation. Right: the fluid load fraction is calculated for representative high and low functioning samples as a function of the prescribed indentation rate. The dark labels correspond to the force-displacement data on the left. The fits to the biphasic model from Moore and Burris16 are shown in red and were used to determine tissue permeability and tensile modulus. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2015 23, 161-169DOI: (10.1016/j.joca.2014.09.021) Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions
Fig. 4 Correlations between the functional performance and material properties for bovine articular cartilage. The functional properties of interest are the effective friction coefficient (Left), effective contact modulus (Center) and fluid load fraction (Right). The Top row contains the best overall correlation for each functional metric. The Bottom row contains the best overall correlation for each functional metric against Ec0, k, and Ec0·k. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2015 23, 161-169DOI: (10.1016/j.joca.2014.09.021) Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions
Fig. 5 Comparisons of the tribological and material properties for the femoral condyles and tibial plateaus of the bovine stifle joint. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Significant differences are indicated by dissimilar letters, P < 0.05. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2015 23, 161-169DOI: (10.1016/j.joca.2014.09.021) Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions
Fig. 6 Comparisons of the tribological and material properties for the femoral central (C), outer (O), inner (I), and tibial shielded (S) and uncovered (U) regions of the bovine stifle joint. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Significant differences are indicated by dissimilar letters, P < 0.05. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2015 23, 161-169DOI: (10.1016/j.joca.2014.09.021) Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions