In Vivo Remodeling of Fibroblast-Derived Vascular Scaffolds Implanted for 6 Months in Rats

Figure 5

Mechanical properties of 4.6 mm FDVS to evaluate homogeneity (a–d) and simulation of a quality control test (e-f). To evaluate the homogeneity along the length of the scaffolds, three scaffolds were cut into three 5 cm long segments each and for every segment, three rings were cut and tested for their estimated burst pressure (a), suture retention strength (b), ultimate tensile strength (c), and thickness (d). The scatterplots present the results for the nine rings tested for each scaffold in order to present the results variability except for the thickness for which the results present the average measurement from six different positions on each third of the scaffold. To simulate a quality control test, a 1.5 cm long segment (extremity) was removed from one extremity of three long vessels, measured for thickness (e), and three tissular rings from the segment were mechanically tested in order to estimate the burst pressure (f). A 10 cm long segment from the rest of the vessel (FDVS) underwent a real burst pressure assay (f) after measuring its thickness (e). Student’s paired -tests were then performed and no statistical differences between measures from the extremity and measures from the rest of the FDVS were found. (g) Macroscopic picture featuring the removal of half a centimeter from each extremity due to a high level of variation at the extremities as a consequence of the rolling process. These extremities (black arrows) were removed systematically on all vessels before testing. Results on histograms are expressed as mean ± SD; scaffolds. NS: not significant.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)