Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 8, 2025
Author Spotlight: A Reproducible and Efficient Method for Accessing Porcine Brain via Craniectomy
Published on: July 5, 2024
Mechanical properties of porcine spinal dura mater and pericranium
S Cavelier1, R D Quarrington2, C F Jones3
1Spinal Research Group & Centre for Orthopaedic and Trauma Research, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia; Department of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, 817 Rue Sherbrooke Ouest, Montréal, QC, H3A 0C3, Canada.
Background:
The objective of this study was to characterize and compare the mechanical properties of porcine pericranium and spinal dura mater, to evaluate the mechanical suitability of pericranium as a dural graft.
Method:
Eighty-eight spinal dura (cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions, in ventral longitudinal, dorsal longitudinal and circumferential orientations) and eighteen pericranium samples (ventral-dorsal, and lateral orientations) from four pigs, were harvested and subjected to uniaxial loading while hydrated. The stiffness, strain at toe-linear regions transition, strain at linear-yield regions transition and other structural and mechanical properties were measured. Stress-strain curves were fitted to a one-term Ogden model and Ogden parameters were calculated. Linear regression models with cluster-robust standard errors were used to assess the effect of region and orientation on material and structural properties.
Results:
Both spinal dura and pericranium exhibited distinct anisotropy and were stiffer in the longitudinal direction. The tissues exhibited structural and mechanical similarities especially in terms of stiffness and strains in the linear region. Stiffness ranged from 1.28 to 5.32 N/mm for spinal dura and 2.42-3.90 N/mm for pericranium. In the circumferential and longitudinal directions, the stiffness of spinal dura specimens was statistically similar to that of pericranium in the same orientation. The strain at the upper bound of the linear region of longitudinal pericranium (28.0%) was statistically similar to that of any spinal dura specimens (24.4-32.9%).
Conclusions:
Autologous pericranium has advantageous physical properties for spinal duraplasty. The present study demonstrated that longitudinally oriented pericranium is mechanically compatible with spinal duraplasty procedures. Autologous pericranium grafts will likely support the mechanical loads transmitted from the spinal dura, but further biomechanical analyses are required to study the effect of the lower yield strain of circumferential pericranium compared to spinal dura. Finally, the Ogden parameters calculated for pericranium, and the spinal dura at each spinal level, will be useful for computational models incorporating these soft tissues.
