4.5 Article

Effects of valve geometry and tissue anisotropy on the radial stretch and coaptation area of tissue-engineered heart valves

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 46, 期 11, 页码 1792-1800

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.05.015

关键词

Tissue engineering; Leaflet retraction; Constitutive modeling; Finite element modeling; Collagen

资金

  1. European Union [242008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tissue engineering represents a promising technique to overcome the limitations of the current valve replacements, since it allows for creating living autologous heart valves that have the potential to grow and remodel. However, also this approach still faces a number of challenges. One particular problem is regurgitation, caused by cell-mediated tissue retraction or the mismatch in geometrical and material properties between tissue-engineered heart valves (TEHVs) and their native counterparts. The goal of the present study was to assess the influence of valve geometry and tissue anisotropy on the deformation profile and closed configuration of TEHVs. To achieve this aim, a range of finite element models incorporating different valve shapes was developed, and the constitutive behavior of the tissue was modeled using an established computational framework, where the degree of anisotropy was varied between values representative of TEHVs and native valves. The results of this study suggest that valve geometry and tissue anisotropy are both important to maximize the radial strains and thereby the coaptation area. Additionally, the minimum degree of anisotropy that is required to obtain positive radial strains was shown to depend on the valve shape and the pressure to which the valves are exposed. Exposure to pulmonary diastolic pressure only yielded positive radial strains if the anisotropy was comparable to the native situation, whereas considerably less anisotropy was required if the valves were exposed to aortic diastolic pressure. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据