Why the study?
Does the moving-boundary method (MBM) accurately and efficiently simulate hemodynamics in aortic dissection compared to fluid-structure interaction (FSI)?
Population
1 patient-specific case study of an acute type-B aortic dissection in a 54-year-old female, and a 1D elastic…
Comparison
Moving-boundary method for computational fluid… vs Fluid-structure interaction simulation and…
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Loading...
Simplified moving-boundary CFD captures AD wall-motion effects at lower cost; leaves open translation to improved patient-specific management.
Does the moving-boundary method (MBM) accurately and efficiently simulate hemodynamics in aortic dissection compared to fluid-structure interaction (FSI)?
The moving-boundary method provides a computationally efficient and accurate alternative to fluid-structure interaction for simulating hemodynamics in aortic dissection, facilitating potential clinical translation.
Bonfanti et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: