Key result
FSI yields ~20% lower maximum wall shear stress than CFD in aneurysm rupture modeling.
Why the study?
Computational fluid dynamics and fluid-structure interaction methods are commonly used to evaluate hemodynamic parameters related to cerebral aneurysm rupture, but their comparative accuracy and feasibility for clinical decision-making require investigation.
Does 2-way fluid-structure interaction (FSI) provide different hemodynamic parameter estimations compared to computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in a patient-specific giant cerebral aneurysm?
Does 2-way fluid-structure interaction (FSI) provide different hemodynamic parameter estimations compared to computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in a patient-specific giant cerebral aneurysm?
FSI and CFD methods identify similar locations for aneurysm rupture risk but yield different quantitative hemodynamic values, with an 18% difference in predicted wall shear stress.
Simulation discrepancies may affect aneurysm risk estimates; leaves open optimal modeling approach for clinical use.
Nowadays, biomechanical methods are useful to identify the cause and treating of diseases. One of these diseases is the cerebral aneurysm. This disease starts by the inflation of artery wall and then by rupturing, it leads to intracranial hemorrhage. Therefore, it leads to morbidity or even it is the cause of the mortality for many patients. For this reasons, it is important to anticipate the emersion, growth and the rupture of a cerebral aneurysm. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and 2-way fluid-structure interaction (FSI) are common methods for interrogation the rupture of aneurysms and evaluating the effective hemodynamic parameters. In this study, they were employed to obtain appropriate information of a cerebral aneurysm. A patient-specific giant aneurysm was chosen in the internal carotid artery (ICA). Mooney-Rivlin parameters were used for the solid part and a non-Newtonian Carreu model was employed in the fluid part. Important hemodynamic parameters such as wall shear stress (WSS), time average wall shear stress (TAWSS), spatial average wall shear stress (SAWSS), oscillatory shear index (OSI), and relative residence time (RRT) were discussed. In addition, these methods were then compared and the number of cycles assessed to determine the accuracy of the solutions. Both methods illustrate a similar location for the risk of a rupture related to these hemodynamic parameters but with different quantities. The novelty of this works lies at the feasibility of using the FSI and CFD methods to show the cost function in the future clinical decision-making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdollahi et al. (2021) studied Giant saccular cerebral aneurysm (n=1). Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI) simulation vs. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation was evaluated on Hemodynamic parameters (WSS, TAWSS, SAWSS, OSI, RRT). FSI and CFD simulations identified similar locations for aneurysm rupture risk, but FSI yielded a 20% lower maximum spatial average wall shear stress and twice the maximum relative residence time compared to CFD.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: