4.5 Article

Including surrounding tissue improves ultrasound-based 3D mechanical characterization of abdominal aortic aneurysms

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 85, 期 -, 页码 126-133

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.01.024

关键词

Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Wall stress; Ultrasound; Speckle tracking; Arterial stiffness

资金

  1. Lijf & Leven foundation
  2. IMPULS-II

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: In this study the influence of surrounding tissues including the presence of the spine on wall stress analysis and mechanical characterization of abdominal aortic aneurysms using ultrasound imaging has been investigated. Methods: Geometries of 7 AAA patients and 11 healthy volunteers were acquired using 3-D ultrasound and converted to finite element based models. Model complexity of externally unsupported (aorta only) models was complemented with inclusion of both soft tissue around the aorta and a spine support dorsal to the aorta. Computed 3-D motion of the aortic wall was verified by means of ultrasound speckle tracking. Resulting stress, strain, and estimated shear moduli were analyzed to quantify the effect of adding surrounding material supports. Results: An improved agreement was shown between the ultrasound measurements and the finite element tissue and spine models compared to the aorta-only models. Peak and 99-percentile Von Mises stress showed an overall decrease of 23-30%, while estimated shear modulus decreased with 12-20% after addition of the soft tissue. Shear strains in the aortic wall were higher in areas close to the spine compared to the anterior region. Conclusions: Improving model complexity with surrounding tissue and spine showed a homogenization of wall stresses, reduction in homogeneity of shear strain at the posterior side of the AAA, and a decrease in estimated aortic wall shear modulus. Future research will focus on the importance of a patient-specific spine geometry and location. (C) 2019 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