ith great interest, we read the stimulating editorial by Dr Kallmes, who raises important questions regarding the potential utility of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in guiding neurointerventional and neurosurgical treatment of cerebral aneurysms. We believe that Dr Kallmes' opinion is representative of that of most avant-garde clinicians who have collaborated with computational scientists or engineering researchers. These clinicians not only appreciate the aesthetic and intuitive aspects of CFD simulations but also recognize their enormous potential for providing objective, quantitative, and mechanism-based parameters to stratify aneurysm rupture risk and help aneurysm management. Recently clinical journals such as the American Journal of Neuroradiology have seen an increasing number of articles about CFD. It is sobering to reflect on where we are and where we should be heading.Dr Kallmes' main points are the following: 1) CFD involves assumptions that might make results questionable; 2) a large number of hemodynamic parameters have surfaced in recent publications, which are confusing and confounding; 3) to change the current situation of isolated groups working on a small number of cases, cross-disciplinary collaboration on a large amount of clinical data is required to realize the clinical utility of CFD; and 4) CFD researchers need to close the gaps in information and address the conflicting information and confounding variables. These are excellent points (despite a few minor misconceptions), with which we emphatically agree.We wish to express our thoughts in response to Dr Kallmes' points. CFD holds great promise for revealing aneurysm pathophysiology and for becoming a tool that the neurointerventionalists could expect to use routinely someday to assess patients' aneurysm rupture risk and to guide treatment. However, an aneurysm is a complex problem. To make CFD work for clinical practice, computational scientists/engineers and clinicians have to work much closer together. We are fully on board with Dr Kallmes in his call for multidisciplinary collaboration to build a large clinical data base for CFD and to realize its clinical utility.
How Much Detail Should Clinicians Know about CFD and Its Assumptions?Dr Kallmes raises an important question about whether clinicians need to know the details of CFD computations. We are of the opinion that though clinicians do not need to understand all the details of how CFD calculations are performed, just as they do not know all the details about the medical imaging equipment they use, it is very important that they at least understand the approximations, assumptions, and limitations of these techniques, just as they do with medical imaging systems.Dr Kallmes mentions some typical approximations made in most CFD studies, apparently implying that because of these, the CFD methodology is inaccurate and unreliable. CFD has played an indispensible role in almost every aspect of technology that we enjoy in modern life, including aircraft design, food processing, and wea...