Residual type B aortic dissection FSI modeling

Khalsi, F.; Guivier-Curien, Carine; Gaudry, Marine; Piquet, Philippe; Deplano, Valérie

doi:10.1080/10255842.2020.1812165

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The aforementioned FSI studies focused on TBAD. Only two studies were found that involved FSI simulations of residual TBAD patients with the ascending aortas being replaced with synthetic grafts ( Bäumler et al, 2020 ; Khannous et al, 2020 ). Bäumler et al (2020) developed a sophisticated FSI model by including pre-stress, external tissue support, geometry tethering, as well as a regionally defined flap elasticity with variable values.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluid-Structure Interaction Simulations of Repaired Type A Aortic Dissection: a Comprehensive Comparison With Rigid Wall Models

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of aortic wall compliance on intraluminal hemodynamics within surgically repaired type A aortic dissection (TAAD). Fully coupled two-way fluid-structure interaction (FSI) simulations were performed on two patient-specific post-surgery TAAD models reconstructed from computed tomography angiography images. Our FSI model incorporated prestress and different material properties for the aorta and graft. Computational results, including velocity, wall shear stress (WSS) and pressure difference between the true and false lumen, were compared between the FSI and rigid wall simulations. It was found that the FSI model predicted lower blood velocities and WSS along the dissected aorta. In particular, the area exposed to low time-averaged WSS (≤0.2 Pa) was increased from 21 cm2 (rigid) to 38 cm2 (FSI) in patient 1 and from 35 cm2 (rigid) to 144 cm2 (FSI) in patient 2. FSI models also produced more disturbed flow where much larger regions presented with higher turbulence intensity as compared to the rigid wall models. The effect of wall compliance on pressure difference between the true and false lumen was insignificant, with the maximum difference between FSI and rigid models being less than 0.25 mmHg for the two patient-specific models. Comparisons of simulation results for models with different Young’s moduli revealed that a more compliant wall resulted in further reduction in velocity and WSS magnitudes because of increased displacements. This study demonstrated the importance of FSI simulation for accurate prediction of low WSS regions in surgically repaired TAAD, but a rigid wall computational fluid dynamics simulation would be sufficient for prediction of luminal pressure difference.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluid-Structure Interaction Simulations of Repaired Type A Aortic Dissection: a Comprehensive Comparison With Rigid Wall Models

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the context of vascular flow, prominent choices are the Quemada, 21 Carreau-Yasuda, 13,16,18,42 or the Carreau 31 model, capturing the shear-thinning behavior of blood. The latter rheological law can be expressed as…”

Section: Blood Flow Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While in some configurations neglecting the vessel wall compliance leads to acceptable modeling errors, several works have demonstrated the opposite. [13][14][15][16] The inclusion of the vessel wall as an elastic object introduces several additional complexities: firstly, blood and tissue exchange momentum and energy, leading to a surface-coupled multi-physics problem; secondly, there are a variety of modeling aspects and related (possibly unknown) parameters that require additional coverage resources; and thirdly, the computational complexity increases greatly, which leads to computing times a factor of 5 to 20 longer at best.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the fact that rigid‐wall simulations have been successfully employed to reproduce flow conditions and have shown reasonable, good, or even excellent agreement with clinical data, the extensive literature in this field suggests that some aortic dissection configurations are not suitable for fixed‐grid CFD analysis. While in some configurations neglecting the vessel wall compliance leads to acceptable modeling errors, several works have demonstrated the opposite 13–16 . The inclusion of the vessel wall as an elastic object introduces several additional complexities: firstly, blood and tissue exchange momentum and energy, leading to a surface‐coupled multi‐physics problem; secondly, there are a variety of modeling aspects and related (possibly unknown) parameters that require additional coverage resources; and thirdly, the computational complexity increases greatly, which leads to computing times a factor of 5 to 20 longer at best.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hemodynamic indicators differed heavily between FSI and rigid wall CFD simulations, despite the fact that a rather stiff linear elastic material was considered. Khannous et al 16 considered FSI by coupling a non‐Newtonian fluid and a linear elastic continuum of constant thickness. Comparing FSI and rigid‐wall CFD approaches, the authors document that the CFD simulation tends to overestimate fluid velocities and, therefore, wall shear stress (WSS).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On the role of tissue mechanics in fluid–structure interaction simulations of patient‐specific aortic dissection

Schussnig,

Rolf‐Pissarczyk,

Bäumler

et al. 2024

Numerical Meth Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modeling an aortic dissection represents a particular challenge from a numerical perspective, especially when it comes to the interaction between solid (aortic wall) and liquid (blood flow). The complexity of patient‐specific simulations requires a variety of parameters, modeling assumptions and simplifications that currently hinder their routine use in clinical settings. We present a numerical framework that captures, among other things, the layer‐specific anisotropic properties of the aortic wall, the non‐Newtonian behavior of blood, patient‐specific geometry, and patient‐specific flow conditions. We compare hemodynamic indicators and stress measurements in simulations with increasingly complex material models for the vessel tissue ranging from rigid walls to anisotropic hyperelastic materials. We find that for the present geometry and boundary conditions, rigid wall simulations produce different results than fluid–structure interaction simulations. Considering anisotropic fiber contributions in the tissue model, stress measurements in the aortic wall differ, but shear stress‐based biomarkers are less affected. In summary, the increasing complexity of the tissue model enables capturing more details. However, an extensive parameter set is also required. Since the simulation results depend on these modeling choices, variations can lead to different recommendations in clinical applications.

show abstract

Fluid-structure interaction in aortic dissections

Deplano,

Guivier-Curien

2024

Biomechanics of the Aorta

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Residual type B aortic dissection FSI modeling

Cited by 6 publications

References 4 publications

Fluid-Structure Interaction Simulations of Repaired Type A Aortic Dissection: a Comprehensive Comparison With Rigid Wall Models

Fluid-Structure Interaction Simulations of Repaired Type A Aortic Dissection: a Comprehensive Comparison With Rigid Wall Models

On the role of tissue mechanics in fluid–structure interaction simulations of patient‐specific aortic dissection

Fluid-structure interaction in aortic dissections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About