PURPOSE: To review the use of biomechanical indices for the estimation of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture risk, emphasizing their potential use in a clinical setting. METHODS: A search of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Compendex databases was made up to June 2015 to identify articles involving biomechanical analysis of AAA rupture risk. Outcome variables [aneurysm diameter, peak wall stress (PWS), peak wall shear stress (PWSS), wall strain, peak wall rupture index (PWRI), and wall stiffness] were compared for asymptomatic intact AAAs vs symptomatic or ruptured AAAs. For quantitative analysis of the pooled data, a random effects model was used to calculate the standard mean differences (SMDs) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the biomechanical indices. RESULTS: The initial database searches yielded 1894 independent articles of which 19 were included in the analysis. The PWS was significantly higher in the symptomatic/ruptured group, with a SMD of 1.11 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.26, p<0.001). Likewise, the PWRI was significantly higher in the ruptured or symptomatic group, with a SMD of 1.15 (95% CI 0.30 to 2.01, p=0.008). After adjustment for the aneurysm diameter, the PWS remained higher in the ruptured or symptomatic group, with a SMD of 0.85 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.23, p<0.001). Less is known of the wall shear stress and wall strain indices, as too few studies were available for analysis. CONCLUSION: Biomechanical indices are a promising tool in the assessment of AAA rupture risk as they incorporate several factors, including geometry, tissue properties, and patient-specific risk factors. However, clinical implementation of biomechanical AAA assessment remains a challenge owing to a lack of standardization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leemans et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: