Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 19, 2026

Imaging Cell Viability on Non-transparent Scaffolds — Using the Example of a Novel Knitted Titanium Implant
Published on: September 7, 2016
In vitro performance investigation of bioresorbable scaffolds - Standard tests for vascular stents and beyond
Wolfram Schmidt1, Peter Behrens1, Christoph Brandt-Wunderlich2
1Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University Medicine Rostock, Friedrich-Barnewitz-Strasse 4, D-18119 Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany.
Background/Purpose:
Biodegradable polymers are the main materials for coronary scaffolds. Magnesium has been investigated as a potential alternative and was successfully tested in human clinical trials. However, it is still challenging to achieve mechanical parameters comparative to permanent bare metal (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES). As such, in vitro tests are required to assess mechanical parameters correlated to the safety and efficacy of the device.
Methods/Materials:
In vitro bench tests evaluate scaffold profiles, length, deliverability, expansion behavior including acute elastic and time-dependent recoil, bending stiffness and radial strength. The Absorb GT1 (Abbott Vascular, Temecula, CA), DESolve (Elixir Medical Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA) and the Magmaris (BIOTRONIK AG, Bülach, Switzerland) that was previously tested in the BIOSOLVE II study, were tested.
Results:
Crimped profiles were 1.38±0.01mm (Absorb GT1), 1.39±0.01mm (DESolve) and 1.44±0.00mm (Magmaris) enabling 6F compatibility. Trackability was measured depending on stiffness and force transmission (pushability). Acute elastic recoil was measured at free expansion and within a mock vessel, respectively, yielding results of 5.86±0.76 and 5.22±0.38% (Absorb), 7.85±3.45 and 9.42±0.21% (DESolve) and 5.57±0.72 and 4.94±0.31% (Magmaris). Time-dependent recoil (after 1h) was observed for the Absorb and DESolve scaffolds but not for the Magmaris. The self-correcting wall apposition behavior of the DESolve did not prevent time-dependent recoil under vessel loading.
Conclusions:
The results of the suggested test methods allow assessment of technical feasibility based on objective mechanical data and highlight the main differences between polymeric and metallic bioresorbable scaffolds.
More Related Videos
09:49Author Spotlight: Insights into the Use of Apple-Derived Cellulose Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering
Published on: February 23, 2024
07:51A Multi-Cue Bioreactor to Evaluate the Inflammatory and Regenerative Capacity of Biomaterials under Flow and Stretch
Published on: December 10, 2020