Workshop on the characterization of fiber-based scaffolds: Challenges, progress, and future directions.

A critical component of many tissue-engineered medical products (TEMPs) is the scaffold or biomaterial. The industry's understanding of scaffold properties and their influence on cell behavior has advanced, but our technical capability to reliably characterize scaffolds requires improvement, especially to enable large-scale manufacturing. In response to the key findings from the 2013 ASTM International Workshop of Standards and Measurements for Tissue Engineering Scaffolds, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), ASTM International, BiofabUSA, and the Standards Coordinating Body (SCB) organized a workshop in 2018 titled, "Characterization of Fiber-Based Scaffolds". The goal was to convene a group of 40 key industry stakeholders to identify major roadblocks in measurements of fiber-based scaffold properties. This report provides an overview of the findings from this collaborative workshop. The four major consensus findings were that (a) there is need for a documentary standard guide that would aid developers in the selection of test methods for characterizing fiber-based scaffolds; (b) there is a need for a strategy to assess the quality of porosity and pore size measurements, which could potentially be ameliorated by the development of a reference material; (b) there are challenges with the lexicon used to describe and assess scaffolds; and (d) the vast array of product applications makes it challenging to identify consensus test methods. As a result of these findings, a working group was formed to develop an ASTM Standard Guide for Characterizing Fiber-Based Constructs that will provide developers guidance on selecting measurements for characterizing fiber-based scaffolds.

Surface orientation effects on bending properties of surgical mesh are independent of tensile properties.

INTRODUCTION: Current mechanical testing of surgical mesh focuses primarily on tensile properties even though implanted devices are not subjected to pure tensile loads. Our objective was to determine the flexural (bending) properties of surgical mesh and determine if they correlate with mesh tensile properties. METHODS: The flexural rigidity values of 11 different surgical mesh designs were determined along three textile directions (machine, cross-machine, and 45° to machine; n = 5 for each) using ASTM D1388-14 while tracking surface orientation. Tensile testing was also performed on the same specimens using ASTM D882-12. Linear regressions were performed to compare mesh flexural rigidity to mesh thickness, areal mass density, filament diameter, ultimate tensile strength, and maximum extension. RESULTS: Of 33 mesh specimen groups, 30 had significant differences in flexural rigidity values when comparing surface orientations (top and bottom). Flexural rigidity and mesh tensile properties also varied with textile direction (machine and cross-machine). There was no strong correlation between the flexural and tensile properties, with mesh thickness having the best overall correlation with flexural rigidity. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, surface orientation is not indicated on marketed surgical mesh, and a single mesh may behave differently depending on the direction of loading. The lack of correlation between flexural stiffness and tensile properties indicates the need to examine mesh bending stiffness to provide a more comprehensive understanding of surgical mesh mechanical behaviors. Further investigation is needed to determine if these flexural properties result in the surgical mesh behaving mechanically different depending on implantation direction. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 106B: 854-862, 2018.