4.4 Article

Comparison of hemodynamics of intracranial aneurysms between MR fluid dynamics using 3D cine phase-contrast MRI and MR-based computational fluid dynamics

期刊

NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 52, 期 10, 页码 913-920

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00234-009-0634-4

关键词

Intracranial aneurysm; Hemodynamics; Cine phase-contrast MR imaging; Magnetic resonance fluid dynamics; Computational fluid dynamics

资金

  1. Information-Technology Promotion Agency, Japan
  2. Renaissance of Technology Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hemodynamics is thought to play a very important role in the initiation, growth, and rupture of intracranial aneurysms. The purpose of our study was to compare hemodynamics of intracranial aneurysms of MR fluid dynamics (MRFD) using 3D cine PC MR imaging (4D-Flow) at 1.5 T and MR-based computational fluid dynamics (CFD). 4D-Flow was performed for five intracranial aneurysms by a 1.5 T MR scanner. 3D TOF MR angiography was performed for geometric information. The blood flow in the aneurysms was modeled using CFD simulation based on the finite element method. We used MR angiographic data as the vascular models and MR flow information as boundary conditions in CFD. 3D velocity vector fields, 3D streamlines, shearing velocity maps, wall shear stress (WSS) distribution maps and oscillatory shear index (OSI) distribution maps were obtained by MRFD and CFD and were compared. There was a moderate to high degree of correlation in 3D velocity vector fields and a low to moderate degree of correlation in WSS of aneurysms between MRFD and CFD using regression analysis. The patterns of 3D streamlines were similar between MRFD and CFD. The small and rotating shearing velocities and higher OSI were observed at the top of the spiral flow in the aneurysms. The pattern and location of shearing velocity in MRFD and CFD were similar. The location of high oscillatory shear index obtained by MRFD was near to that obtained by CFD. MRFD and CFD of intracranial aneurysms correlated fairly well.

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

4.4
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