Why the study?
It remains unclear whether adopting the laminar flow assumption significantly compromises the reliability of aortic hemodynamic simulation in aortopathy.
Does the laminar flow assumption (LFA) modeling method provide reliable hemodynamic simulations compared to the large eddy simulation (LES) method in aortas with dilation?
Does the laminar flow assumption (LFA) modeling method provide reliable hemodynamic simulations compared to the large eddy simulation (LES) method in aortas with dilation?
The laminar flow assumption provides similar large-scale flow patterns to large eddy simulation in dilated aortas, but may have discrepancies in regions of high turbulence.
LFA approximates LES for large-scale aortic hemodynamics in dilation; leaves open accuracy in turbulent zones and human validation needs.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: