Key result
Variations in surface smoothing, segmentation phases, and the inclusion of wall motion significantly altered the spatial distribution and peak values of wall shear stress in a patient-specific aortic computational model.
Why the study?
Computational approaches for assessing cardiovascular hemodynamics remain affected by sources of errors and uncertainties across different levels of analysis and simulation methods.
Incorporating realistic wall motion in aortic computational models significantly affects wall shear stress estimations, shifting values higher compared to rigid wall assumptions.
Computational aortic hemodynamics modeling carries uncertainties; leaves open reliable clinical use for aneurysm assessment pending validation.
The assessment of cardiovascular hemodynamics with computational techniques is establishing its fundamental contribution within the world of modern clinics. Great research interest was focused on the aortic vessel. The study of aortic flow, pressure, and stresses is at the basis of the understanding of complex pathologies such as aneurysms. Nevertheless, the computational approaches are still affected by sources of errors and uncertainties. These phenomena occur at different levels of the computational analysis, and they also strongly depend on the type of approach adopted. With the current study, the effect of error sources was characterized for an aortic case. In particular, the geometry of a patient-specific aorta structure was segmented at different phases of a cardiac cycle to be adopted in a computational analysis. Different levels of surface smoothing were imposed to define their influence on the numerical results. After this, three different simulation methods were imposed on the same geometry: a rigid wall computational fluid dynamics (CFD), a moving-wall CFD based on radial basis functions (RBF) CFD, and a fluid-structure interaction (FSI) simulation. The differences of the implemented methods were defined in terms of wall shear stress (WSS) analysis. In particular, for all the cases reported, the systolic WSS and the time-averaged WSS (TAWSS) were defined.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Celi et al. (2021) studied Aortic hemodynamics (n=1). Computational modeling variations (smoothing, segmentation phases, simulation methods) vs. Rigid wall computational fluid dynamics (CFD) was evaluated on Wall shear stress (WSS) and time-averaged WSS (TAWSS). Variations in surface smoothing, segmentation phases, and the inclusion of wall motion significantly altered the spatial distribution and peak values of wall shear stress in a patient-specific aortic computational model.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: