Skin is a complex material covering the entire surface of the human body. Studying the mechanical properties of skin to calibrate a constitutive model is of great importance to many applications such as plastic or cosmetic surgery and treatment of skin-based diseases like decubitus ulcers. The main objective of the present study was to identify and calibrate an appropriate material constitutive model for skin and establish certain universal properties that are independent of patient-specific variability. We performed uniaxial tests performed on breast skin specimens freshly harvested during mastectomy. Two different constitutive models – one phenomenological and another microstructurally inspired – were used to interpret the mechanical responses observed in the experiments. Remarkably, we found that the model parameters that characterize dependence on previous maximum stretch (or preconditioning) exhibited specimen-independent universal behavior.

No abstract

Characterization of material properties of human skin is required to develop a physics-based biomechanical model that can predict deformation of female breast after cosmetic and reconstructive surgery. In this paper, we have adopted an experimental approach to characterize the biaxial response of human skin using bulge tests. Skin specimens were harvested from breast and abdominal skin of female subjects who underwent mastectomy and/or reconstruction at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and who provided informed consent. The specimens were tested within 2 h of harvest, and after freezing for different time periods but not exceeding 6 months. Our experimental results show that storage in a freezer at −20 °C for up to about 40 days does not lead to changes in the mechanical response of the skin beyond statistical variation. Moreover, displacement at the apex of the bulged specimen versus applied pressure varies significantly between different specimens from the same subject and from different subjects. The bulge test results were used in an inverse optimization procedure in order to calibrate two different constitutive material models-the angular integration model proposed by Lanir (1983) and the generalized structure tensor formulation of Gasser et al. (2006). The material parameters were estimated through a cost function that penalized deviations of the displacement and principal curvatures at the apex. Generally, acceptable fits were obtained with both models, although the angular integration model was able to fit the curvatures slightly better than the Gasser et al. model. The range of the model parameters has been extracted for use in physics-based biomechanical models of the breast.

Purpose:To investigate variation in measurements of breast skin thickness obtained using different imaging modalities, including mammography, computed tomography (CT), ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Methods:Breast skin thicknesses as measured by mammography, CT, ultrasound, and MRI were compared. Mammographic measurements of skin thickness were obtained from published studies that utilized standard positioning (upright) and compression. CT measurements of skin thickness were obtained from a published study of a prototype breast CT scanner in which the women were in the prone position and the breast was uncompressed. Dermatological ultrasound exams of the breast skin were conducted at our institution, with the subjects in the upright position and the breast uncompressed. Breast skin thickness was calculated from breast MRI exams at our institution, with the patient in the prone position and the breast uncompressed.Results:T tests for independent samples demonstrated significant differences in the mean breast skin thickness as measured by different imaging modalities. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in breast skin thickness across different quadrants of the breast for some modalities.Conclusion:The measurement of breast skin thickness is significantly different across different imaging modalities. Differences in the amount of compression and differences in patient positioning are possible reasons why measurements of breast skin thickness vary by modality.