Table 1.
Comparison of currently available biophysical tools suitable for biomechanical assessment of platelets
| Biophysical method | Biomechanical properties | Restrictions | Throughput | Technical know‐how | Commercial vendors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Micropipette aspiration | Elastic and viscoelastic | Nonadherent/In suspension and adherent |
Low 1‐5 platelets/h |
Highly skilled | NA |
| Atomic force microscopy | Elastic, viscoelastic, and adhesion forces | Adherent |
Low 1‐5 platelets/h |
Highly skilled | Yes |
| Scanning ion conductance microscopy | Elastic and viscoelastic | Adherent |
Low 1‐10 platelets/h |
Highly skilled | Yes |
| Traction force microscopy on hydrogel substrates | Adhesion and contraction | Adherent | Medium to high | Skilled | NA |
| Micropillars and deformable 3D substrates | Adhesion and contraction | Adherent | Medium | Skilled | Yes |
| Real‐time deformability cytometry | Deformability | Nonadherent/In suspension |
Very high 100‐1000 platelets/sec |
Skilled | Yes |