Table 3 Comparison of the bioresorbable metallic stents.
From: Expandable Mg-based Helical Stent Assessment using Static, Dynamic, and Porcine Ex Vivo Models
Material | Strut material | Design | Model | Shear stress (Pa) | Testing period (day) | Method | Degradation rate (mm/y) | Literature |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mg-base | AZ31 | Helical Coil | Ex vivo (SBF) | 0.154 | 3 | Volume reduction | 0.44 | This article |
AZ31 | Helical Coil | Immersion (SBF) | — | 3 | Volume reduction | 0.99 | This article | |
Mg-base | AZ31 | Tubular | Immersion (SBF) | — | 7 | Volume reduction | 0.37 | |
| Â | Â | Dynamic (SBF) | 0.056 | 7 | Volume reduction | 1.21 | Â | |
Mg-base | AZ31 | Tubular | Immersion (D-Hanks’ solution) | — | 3 | Mass loss | 23~35% mass loss | |
Fe-base | Fe35Mn | Prototype | Dynamic (SBF) | 0.6 | Â | Electro chemical | 0.51 |
