2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.11.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The influence of testing angle on the biomechanical properties of the rat supraspinatus tendon

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
12
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
3
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The power analysis was performed based on the previous study of Newton et al, who demonstrated that the mechanical properties of the suparpinatus tendon consisting of stress‐relaxation and load‐to‐failure were significantly affected by the abduction/testing angle. Using the G*Power 3.0 program, we calculated required sample size for the comparison between two independent means with the 1:1 allocation ratio, and the power analysis determined that 13 specimens were needed per group to detect a significant difference in ultimate failure load (comparison between two groups, mean difference = 35 N, standard deviation = 25 N, α error = 0.05, β error = 0.1, drop‐out rate = 20%) based on the previous study . The right shoulder of each rat was used for the biomechanical evaluation including assessment of ultimate failure load, while the left shoulder was used for histological analysis.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The power analysis was performed based on the previous study of Newton et al, who demonstrated that the mechanical properties of the suparpinatus tendon consisting of stress‐relaxation and load‐to‐failure were significantly affected by the abduction/testing angle. Using the G*Power 3.0 program, we calculated required sample size for the comparison between two independent means with the 1:1 allocation ratio, and the power analysis determined that 13 specimens were needed per group to detect a significant difference in ultimate failure load (comparison between two groups, mean difference = 35 N, standard deviation = 25 N, α error = 0.05, β error = 0.1, drop‐out rate = 20%) based on the previous study . The right shoulder of each rat was used for the biomechanical evaluation including assessment of ultimate failure load, while the left shoulder was used for histological analysis.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main endpoint was the ultimate failure load at the 8th week postrepair. The power analysis was performed based on the previous study of Newton et al 21 Using the SPSS 19.0 software (Chicago), we calculated required sample size for the comparison between two independent means with the 1:1 allocation ratio, and the power analysis Animals (n = 120) were randomly assigned to six groups (n = 20 per group): group 1, the control group without operation; group 2, the TGF-β1 group receiving lentiviral vectors containing siRNAs against TGF-β1; group 3, the Smad2 group receiving lentiviral vectors containing siRNAs against Smad2; group 4, the Smad3 group receiving lentiviral vectors containing siRNAs against Smad3; group 5, the vector group receiving empty vector after surgery; group 6, the normal saline (NS) group receiving a subacromial injection of NS after surgery (the injection method mentioned was previously reported in our team 22 ). The rats were randomized using a computer-generated block randomization sequence (www.randomizer.org) before surgical repair.…”
Section: Experimental Groupmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The humerus was pneumatically fixed at a 0° inclination in a Zwick BZ 2.5/TN1S uniaxial testing machine (ZwickRoell). 37 All specimens were preconditioned by 5 strain-increase cycles of 0.2% per second from 0.2 to 0.6 N until a maximum of 5% was reached. Maximum load to failure was defined as an outcome parameter by a strain increase of 0.5 mm/min.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%