2014
DOI: 10.1177/1708538114552836
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of morphological and rheological conditions between conventional and eversion carotid endarterectomy using computational fluid dynamics – a pilot study

Abstract: Computational fluid dynamics after conventional carotid endarterectomy and eversion carotid endarterectomy disclosed differences in hemodynamic patterns. Larger studies are necessary to assess whether these differences are consistent and might explain different rates of restenosis in both techniques.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our group recently used computational fluid dynamics to compare postoperative morphologic and rheologic conditions after e-CEA vs s-CEA. 4 Interestingly, the systolic peak of the e-CEA model showed a gradually decreased pressure along the stream path, whereas the s-CEA model revealed a relatively high pressure (about 180 Pa) at the carotid bulb. This contradicts the theory of Marrocco-Trischitta et al 2 that s-CEA has a disadvantage regarding elastic properties of the carotid sinus vascular wall.…”
Section: Replymentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Our group recently used computational fluid dynamics to compare postoperative morphologic and rheologic conditions after e-CEA vs s-CEA. 4 Interestingly, the systolic peak of the e-CEA model showed a gradually decreased pressure along the stream path, whereas the s-CEA model revealed a relatively high pressure (about 180 Pa) at the carotid bulb. This contradicts the theory of Marrocco-Trischitta et al 2 that s-CEA has a disadvantage regarding elastic properties of the carotid sinus vascular wall.…”
Section: Replymentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Fig. 2), and zero pressure was set at the extended outlets [23]. No slip and rigid boundary conditions were imposed at the walls.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Scan and reconstruction parameters were as follows: 120 kV, 120 mAs, reconstructed slice thickness 0.75 mm, reconstruction increment 0.7mm, pixel spacing 0.4x0.4mm and 90 ml contrast medium (iomeprol with 400 mg iodine per ml, Imeron 400, Bracco Diagnostics, Princeton, NJ, USA) with 50 ml saline chaser. The MDCT datasets of the right carotid arteries of PI and PIII have been used in our previous study [13]. In the current study, these two datasets were newly segmented and simulations were performed based on the newly reconstructed models.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%