ArticleCell and tissue banking2016
Comparison and evaluation of biomechanical, electrical, and biological methods for assessment of damage to tissue collagen.
Article in Cell and tissue banking, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the efficacy of two antibiotic cocktails in decontamination of cardiovascular tissues.Cell and tissue banking · 2025Article
- The time has come to extend the expiration limit of cryopreserved allograft heart valves.Cell and tissue banking · 2021Review
- Quantitative Image-Based Cell Viability (QuantICV) Assay for Microfluidic 3D Tissue Culture Applications.Micromachines · 2020Article
- The Impact of Heat Treatment on Porcine Heart Valve Leaflets.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In regard to evaluating tissue banking methods used to preserve or otherwise treat (process) soft allograft tissue, current tests may not be sufficiently sensitive to detect potential damage inflicted before, during, and after processing. Using controlled parameters, we aim to examine the sensitivity of specific biomechanical, electrical, and biological tests in detecting mild damage to collagen. Fresh porcine pulmonary heart valves were treated with an enzyme, collagenase, and incubated using various times. Controls received no incubation. All valves were cryopreserved and stored at -135 °C until being rewarmed for evaluation using biomechanical, permeability, and cell viability tests. Statistically significant time dependent changes in leaflet ultimate stress, (p = 0.006), permeability (p = 0.01), and viability (p ≤ 0.02, four different days of culture) were found between heart valves subjected to 0-15 min of collagenase treatment (ANOVA). However, no statistical significance was found between the tensile modulus of treated and untreated valves (p = 0.07). Furthermore, the trends of decreasing and increasing ultimate stress and viability, respectively, were somewhat inconsistent across treatment times. These results suggest that permeability tests may offer a sensitive, quantitative assay to complement traditional biomechanical and viability tests in evaluating processing methods used for soft tissue allografts, or when making changes to current validated methods. Multiple test evaluation may also offer insight into the mechanism of potential tissue damage such as, as is the case here, reduced collagen content and increased tissue porosity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.