Gender Specific Porcine Achilles Tendon Stiffness

1
Zepeda, B.; 1Modrell, B.; 1White, G.; 1Hyoung, P.
Brigham Young University, Provo, UT
Senior author: bzepeda@live.com
INTRODUCTION:
Research has shown gender specific differences in mechanical properties
of soft tissue [1]. According to recent studies, men are at higher risk of
Achilles tendon ruptures than women [2]. Physiological parameters are
assumed to play a role in the higher frequency of injury to males [3].
Apart from the gender specific dimension of the soft tissue, one
important parameter is the stiffness of tissues. Stiffer tissue is less
capable of absorbing energy with loading, and therefore may be more
prone to injury. Males have stiffer Achilles tendons [2]. Thus, the
purpose of this research was to validate the proposed gender difference
in the stiffness (Youngs modulus) and look for a possible gender
difference in ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of the Achilles tendon of
porcine specimens.

RESULTS:
The cameras were calibrated using Analyze 8.1 software (Mayo Clinic
Rochester, MN). Images were analyzed to find the length and width of
each specimen in millimeters (Figure 1). The stress and strain were
calculated and plotted using these measurements combined with the data
digitally recorded from the Instron. These calculations were then used
to find both the Youngs modulusslope of the stress strain curveand
the UTSthe highest recorded stressof each specimen (Figure 2).
The averages of all 24 specimens are shown in Figure 3.
A students t-test was used to find statistical significance of the findings.
As such, the male verse female finding for the Youngs modulus was
statistically significant (p=0.005), while the UTS were not (p=0.45).

Male vs. Female Ultimate Tensile Strength and Young's Modulus

Figure 1: Picture taken of tendon in Instron from calibrated optical

microscope.
METHODS AND MATERIALS:
We retrieved male and female pig feet from the local abattoir and stored
them at -20C. The Achilles tendons were isolated and then cut to a
uniform size. The outer fascia was removed and an OCT compound was
used to secure the ligament while it was cut to thickness in a cryotome.
Both male and female tendons were cut into specimens of 0.5 mm
thickness. These were then cut using a scalpel straight cut technique to
the approximate dimensions of 5 by 10 cm (the exact dimensions were
measured later using optical miscopy). These cuts were made so that
specimens fit the custom machined gripping device for the Instron.
Once the specimens were prepared they were continuously sprayed with
polybutane saline solution (PBS). A total of 24 specimens were
prepared for a sample size of 12 tests per gender.

2000
1500
1000
500
Male 0
Stress (psi)

Female

Figure 3: Graph of UTS and Youngs Modulus means with the standard
deviations included

The specimens were tested using an Instron and optical microscopy, and
an example image is seen below (Figure 1). Each tendon was secured by
vice grips with sand paper attached to prevent slipping. All test samples
were pulled in tension at a rate of 10 mm/min. The optical microscopes
were calibrated prior to the tensile pulling. Force and global position
were recorded digitally using Wavetronix (Wavetronix, Provo, UT).

DISCUSSION:
The results from these tests showed a stiffer, yet not stronger male
tendon. These results partially support and validate the prior testing of
Foure [2]. Differences in UTS did not prove to be statistically
significant. This means that Achilles tendons for male porcine, as
compared to females, are not necessarily more likely to rupture as a
result of stress. However, this does not prove males to be less prone to
injury. Stiffer male tendons result in decreased range of motion creating
a greater likelihood of injury during dynamic loading.

Stress vs. Strain

Further testing is needed to clarify the results regarding rupture. More

specimens of different species would prove interesting and provide a
greater global vision of gender differences in tendon stiffness.

1000

Stress (psi)

500

f(x) = 2151.26x - 118.78

0
0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Strain

Figure 2: Example stress strain diagram of specimen

REFERENCES:
[1] Adamo et al., Neuroscience Letters, 516(2):188-92, 2012. [2] Foure
et al., Journal of Orthopedic Research, 30(5):707-12, 2012. [3] Lipps et
al., American Journal of Sports Medicine, 40(1):32-40, 2012.