On the conditional equivalence of chemical loading and mechanical loading on articular cartilage

W. M. Lai, Weiyong Gu, V. C. Mow

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Osmotic pressure loading of articular cartilage has been customarily invoked to be equivalent to mechanical loading. In the literature, this equivalence is defined by the amount of water squeezed from the tissue, i.e. if the amount of water content lost by these two modes of loading are the same, it has been generally regarded that the two loadings are equivalent. This assumption has never been proven. Using the water content lost concept, in this paper, we derived the exact conditions under which an osmotic pressure loading of cartilage can be considered to be equivalent to a mechanical loading. However, the mechanical loading condition satisfying this equivalancy criterion, i.e. an isotropic loading delivered via a porous- permeable rigid platen uniformily applied all around the specimen, is not practically achievable. Moreover, even if this were achieved experimentally, the interstitial fluid pressure caused by the two loading conditions are not the same. This result has important ramifications for interpretation of experimental data from mechanical stimulations of cartilage explant studies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1181-1185
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Biomechanics
Volume31
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 1998

Fingerprint

Cartilage
Articular Cartilage
Osmotic Pressure
Water
Water content
Extracellular Fluid
Osmosis
Pressure
Tissue
Fluids

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

On the conditional equivalence of chemical loading and mechanical loading on articular cartilage. / Lai, W. M.; Gu, Weiyong; Mow, V. C.

In: Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 31, No. 12, 01.12.1998, p. 1181-1185.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{51ba3a22f28640caa1d4386dac73cad1,
title = "On the conditional equivalence of chemical loading and mechanical loading on articular cartilage",
abstract = "Osmotic pressure loading of articular cartilage has been customarily invoked to be equivalent to mechanical loading. In the literature, this equivalence is defined by the amount of water squeezed from the tissue, i.e. if the amount of water content lost by these two modes of loading are the same, it has been generally regarded that the two loadings are equivalent. This assumption has never been proven. Using the water content lost concept, in this paper, we derived the exact conditions under which an osmotic pressure loading of cartilage can be considered to be equivalent to a mechanical loading. However, the mechanical loading condition satisfying this equivalancy criterion, i.e. an isotropic loading delivered via a porous- permeable rigid platen uniformily applied all around the specimen, is not practically achievable. Moreover, even if this were achieved experimentally, the interstitial fluid pressure caused by the two loading conditions are not the same. This result has important ramifications for interpretation of experimental data from mechanical stimulations of cartilage explant studies.",
author = "Lai, {W. M.} and Weiyong Gu and Mow, {V. C.}",
year = "1998",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0021-9290(98)00099-2",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "1181--1185",
journal = "Journal of Biomechanics",
issn = "0021-9290",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - On the conditional equivalence of chemical loading and mechanical loading on articular cartilage

AU - Lai, W. M.

AU - Gu, Weiyong

AU - Mow, V. C.

PY - 1998/12/1

Y1 - 1998/12/1

N2 - Osmotic pressure loading of articular cartilage has been customarily invoked to be equivalent to mechanical loading. In the literature, this equivalence is defined by the amount of water squeezed from the tissue, i.e. if the amount of water content lost by these two modes of loading are the same, it has been generally regarded that the two loadings are equivalent. This assumption has never been proven. Using the water content lost concept, in this paper, we derived the exact conditions under which an osmotic pressure loading of cartilage can be considered to be equivalent to a mechanical loading. However, the mechanical loading condition satisfying this equivalancy criterion, i.e. an isotropic loading delivered via a porous- permeable rigid platen uniformily applied all around the specimen, is not practically achievable. Moreover, even if this were achieved experimentally, the interstitial fluid pressure caused by the two loading conditions are not the same. This result has important ramifications for interpretation of experimental data from mechanical stimulations of cartilage explant studies.

AB - Osmotic pressure loading of articular cartilage has been customarily invoked to be equivalent to mechanical loading. In the literature, this equivalence is defined by the amount of water squeezed from the tissue, i.e. if the amount of water content lost by these two modes of loading are the same, it has been generally regarded that the two loadings are equivalent. This assumption has never been proven. Using the water content lost concept, in this paper, we derived the exact conditions under which an osmotic pressure loading of cartilage can be considered to be equivalent to a mechanical loading. However, the mechanical loading condition satisfying this equivalancy criterion, i.e. an isotropic loading delivered via a porous- permeable rigid platen uniformily applied all around the specimen, is not practically achievable. Moreover, even if this were achieved experimentally, the interstitial fluid pressure caused by the two loading conditions are not the same. This result has important ramifications for interpretation of experimental data from mechanical stimulations of cartilage explant studies.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0013607983&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0013607983&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0021-9290(98)00099-2

DO - 10.1016/S0021-9290(98)00099-2

M3 - Article

C2 - 9882052

AN - SCOPUS:0013607983

VL - 31

SP - 1181

EP - 1185

JO - Journal of Biomechanics

JF - Journal of Biomechanics

SN - 0021-9290

IS - 12

ER -