ABSTRACT: Articular cartilage is integral to the mechanical function of many joints in the body. When injured, cartilage lacks the capacity to self-heal, and thus, therapies and replacements have been developed in recent decades to treat damaged cartilage. Given that the primary function of articular cartilage is mechanical in nature, rigorous physical evaluation of cartilage tissues undergoing treatment and cartilage constructs intended for replacement is an absolute necessity. With the large number of groups developing cartilage tissue engineering strategies, however, a variety of mechanical testing protocols have been reported in the literature. This lack of consensus in testing methods makes comparison between studies difficult at times, and can lead to misinterpretation of data relative to native tissue. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to systematically review mechanical testing of articular cartilage and cartilage repair constructs over the past 10 years (January 2009-December 2018), to highlight the most common testing configurations, and to identify key testing parameters. For the most common tests, key parameters identified in this systematic review were validated by characterizing both cartilage tissue and hydrogels commonly used in cartilage tissue engineering. Our findings show that compression testing was the most common test performed (80.2%; 158/197), followed by evaluation of frictional properties (18.8%; 37/197). Upon further review of those studies performing compression testing, the various modes (ramp, stress relaxation, creep, dynamic) and testing configurations (unconfined, confined, in situ) are described and systematically reviewed for parameters, including strain rate, equilibrium time, and maximum strain. This systematic analysis revealed considerable variability in testing methods. Our validation testing studies showed that such variations in testing criteria could have large implications on reported outcome parameters (e.g., modulus) and the interpretation of findings from these studies. This analysis is carried out for all common testing methods, followed by a discussion of less common trends and directions in the mechanical evaluation of cartilage tissues and constructs. Overall, this work may serve as a guide for cartilage tissue engineers seeking to rigorously evaluate the physical properties of their novel treatment strategies. Impact Statement Articular cartilage tissue engineering has made significant strides with regard to treatments and replacements for injured tissue. The evaluation of these approaches typically involves mechanical testing, yet the plethora of testing techniques makes comparisons between studies difficult, and often leads to misinterpretation of data compared with native tissue. This study serves as a guide for the mechanical testing of cartilage tissues and constructs, highlighting recent trends in test conditions and validating these common procedures. Cartilage tissue engineers, especially those unfamiliar with mechanical testing protocols, will benefit from this study in their quest to physically evaluate novel treatment and regeneration approaches.
