Table 1 Muscle biophysics and biomechanics

Condition	Maximum tetanic force (mN)	Specific tetanic forces (N/mm²)	Optimal length (mm)	Time to peak force in vivo (ms)	Time to half-relaxation in vivo (ms)
Untreated
VML⁺ Scaffold⁻ Cells⁻	292.30 ± 143.73	0.0108 ± 0.0012	12.9 ± 0.3	33.4 ± 1.5	26.2 ± 3.2

Treated
VML⁺ Scaffold⁺ Cells⁻	312.27 ± 106.45	0.0108 ± 0.0029	12.7 ± 0.3	34.3 ± 1.4	27.3 ± 3.3
VML⁺ Scaffold⁺ Cells⁺	539.96 ± 105.45**	0.0111 ± 0.0015	12.5 ± 0.3	36.2 ± 1.3	37.4 ± 3.5*

Uninjured
VML⁻ Scaffold⁻ Cells⁻	620.21 ± 142.04**	0.0112 ± 0.0003	13.9 ± 0.3*	33.9 ± 0.8	36.5 ± 1.2*

Maximum tetanic force (data from experiments shown in Fig. 1a) was reduced in the untreated VML group (VML⁺ Scaffold⁻ Cells⁻) and in the VML group treated with scaffold only (VML⁺ Scaffold⁻ Cells⁻) compared to the VML group treated with scaffold plus cells (VML⁺ Scaffold⁺ Cells⁺) (or to the uninjured control group). No differences were found between the groups in normalized tetanic force. The optimal muscle length differed between the VML group treated with scaffold plus cells (VML⁺ Scaffold⁺ Cells⁻) and the uninjured control group (VML⁻ Scaffold⁻ Cells⁻), despite the similarity of the length-tension curves for these groups. The untreated VML group (VML⁺ Scaffold⁻ Cells⁻) had a faster recovery as measured by time from peak force to half the peak force. No differences were found between the groups in time to peak force. Values are means ± SEM. Groups were compared using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Dunnett’s test. Asterisks indicate significant adjusted p-values from comparison to the uninjured group (“VML⁻ Scaffold⁻ Cells⁻)” from the post hoc Dunnett’s test with α = 0.05

Quick links

Search