ArticleScientific reports2026
A comparative study of the structural-mechanical and porosity characteristics of multi-structure vascular scaffolds.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The geometry of vascular scaffolds is a critical determinant of their clinical performance. However, the decoupled control over structural parameters (e.g., pore size, pore shape, and metal coverage) by different manufacturing processes (e.g., knitting, weaving, and stamping) and their systematic effects on mechanical properties remain unclear. This study aims to systematically compare multi-structured scaffolds fabricated by three distinct processes within a unified testing framework, revealing the intrinsic "process-structure-property" relationship. We designed and fabricated three series, totaling eight types, of tubular scaffolds from 316 L stainless steel: the S1 series (weft-knitted integrally formed), the S2 series (woven and rolled, with four mesh gradients: 30, 60, 90, and 120 mesh), and the S3 series (stamped and rolled, with three stamping-stretching ratios). Image analysis was employed to quantitatively characterize the pore area, pore shape (aspect ratio, circularity), and metal coverage of all scaffolds. Subsequently, their axial compression, axial tension, and radial support properties were systematically evaluated using an electronic universal testing machine. The results demonstrate that the different manufacturing processes successfully created a scaffold library with highly diverse structural parameters. he pore area spanned a wide range (from 0.22 mm² to 5.10 mm²). The S3 series (stamped structures) exhibited significantly anisotropic rhombic pores (aspect ratio 1.47-1.69), whereas the S1/S2 series featured near-isotropic elliptical/square pores (aspect ratio < 1.1). A core finding was the lack of a direct correlation between pore size and metal coverage across the series, confirming that structural parameters can be decoupled through different processes. Mechanical testing revealed that the S3 series exhibited the highest radial support force (peak force > 130 N), axial tensile strength (peak force up to 2447.75 N), and Apparent Compressive Stiffness (up to 135.36 N/mm). Conversely, the S1 (weft-knitted structure) showed the lowest stiffness and highest compliance (Apparent Compressive Stiffness 1.91 N/mm). The mechanical properties of the S2 (woven structures) were intermediate and varied systematically with increasing mesh count.
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.