Key result
Computational analysis compares different finite element mesh types for calculating aortic wall stress in AAA.
Why the study?
The effects of finite element formulation, element quality, and mesh construction methods on the efficiency, robustness, and accuracy of abdominal aortic aneurysm wall stress computation have attracted little attention.
This study evaluates the impact of different finite element mesh constructions and formulations on the calculation of aortic wall stress in AAA patients.
Aortic wall stress is the most common variable of interest in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture risk assessment. Computation of such stress has been dominated by finite element analysis. However, the effects of finite element (FE) formulation, element quality, and methods of FE mesh construction on the efficiency, robustness, and accuracy of such computation have attracted little attention. In this study, we fill this knowledge gap by comparing the results of the calculated aortic wall stress for ten AAA patients using tetrahedral and hexahedral meshes when varying the FE formulation (displacement-based and hybrid), FE shape functions, spatial integration scheme, and number of elements through the wall thickness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alkhatib et al. (2023) studied Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) (n=10). Finite element mesh construction methods (tetrahedral vs hexahedral meshes) was evaluated on Calculated aortic wall stress. Computational finite element analysis of aortic wall stress in 10 AAA patients was compared across different mesh types, formulations, and integration schemes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: