4.5 Article

Local wall thickness in finite element models improves prediction of abdominal aortic aneurysm growth

Journal

JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY
Volume 61, Issue 1, Pages 217-223

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2013.08.032

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL063954, R01 HL103723] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Growing evidence suggests that peak wall stress (PWS) derived from finite element analysis (FEA) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) predicts clinical outcomes better than diameter alone. Prior models assume uniform wall thickness (UWT). We hypothesize that the inclusion of locally variable wall thickness (VWT) into FEA of AAAs will improve its ability to predict clinical outcomes. Methods: Patients with AAAs (n = 26) undergoing radiologic surveillance were identified. Custom MATLAB algorithms generated UWT and VWT aortic geometries from computed tomography angiography images, which were subsequently loaded with systolic blood pressure using FEA. PWS and aneurysm expansion (as a proxy for rupture risk and the need for repair) were examined. Results: The average radiologic follow-up time was 22.0 +/- 13.6 months and the average aneurysm expansion rate was 2.8 +/- 1.7 mm/y. PWS in VWT models significantly differed from PWS in UWT models (238 +/- 68 vs 212 +/- 73 kPa; P = .025). In our sample, initial aortic diameter was not found to be correlated with aneurysm expansion (r = 0.26; P = .19). A stronger correlation was found between aneurysm expansion and PWS derived from VWT models compared with PWS from UWT models (r = 0.86 vs r = 0.58; P = .032 by Fisher r to Z transformation). Conclusions: The inclusion of locally VWT significantly improved the correlation between PWS and aneurysm expansion. Aortic wall thickness should be incorporated into future FEA models to accurately predict clinical outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available