Sources of inconsistency in mean mechanical response of abdominal aortic aneurysm tissue

Abstract

IntroductionThere is a striking difference in the reported mean response of abdominal aortic aneurysm tissue in academic literature depending on the type of tests (uniaxial vs biaxial) performed. In this paper, the hypothesis variability caused by differences in experimental protocols is explored using porcine aortic tissue as a substitute for aneurysmal tissue. MethodsNine samples of porcine aorta were created and both uniaxial and biaxial tests were performed. Three effects were investigated. (i) Effect of sample (non) preconditioning, (ii) effect of objective function used (normalised vs non-normalised), and (iii) effect of chosen procedure used for mean response calculation: constant averaging (CA) vs fit to averaged response (FAR) vs fit to all data (FAD). Both the overall shape of mean curve and mean initial stiffness were compared. Results(i) Non-preconditioning led to a much stiffer response, and initial stiffness was about three times higher for a non-preconditioned response based on uniaxial data compared to a preconditioned biaxial response. (ii) CA led to a much stiffer response compared to FAR and FAD procedures which gave similar results. (iii) Normalised objective function produced a mean response with six times lower initial stiffness and more pronounced nonlinearity compared to non-normalised objective function. DiscussionIt is possible to reproduce a mechanically inconsistent response purely by using the chosen experimental protocol. Non-preconditioned data from failure tests should be used for FE simulation of the elastic response of aneurysms. CA should not be used to obtain a mean response.