4.6 Article

Compliance mismatch and compressive wall stresses drive anomalous remodelling of pulmonary trunks reinforced with Dacron grafts

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.06.023

关键词

Dacron graft; Pulmonary artery; Biomechanics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Synthetic grafts are often satisfactory employed in cardiac and vascular surgery, including expanded poly(ethylene terephthalate) or expanded poly(tetrafluoroethylene). However, accumulating evidences suggest the emergence of worrisome issues concerning the long-term fate of prosthetic grafts as large vessel replacement. Disadvantages related to the use of synthetic grafts can be traced in their inability of mimicking the elasto-mechanical characteristics of the native vascular tissue, local suture overstress leading to several prosthesis-related complications and retrograde deleterious effects on valve competence, cardiac function and perfusion. Motivated by this, in the present work it is analyzed - by means of both elemental biomechanical paradigms and more accurate in silico Finite Element simulations - the physical interaction among aorta, autograft and widely adopted synthetic (Dacron) prostheses utilized in transposition of pulmonary artery, highlighting the crucial role played by somehow unexpected stress fields kindled in the vessel walls and around suture regions, which could be traced as prodromal to the triggering of anomalous remodelling processes and alterations of needed surgical outcomes. Theoretical results are finally compared with histological and surgical data related to a significant experimental animal campaign conducted by performing pulmonary artery transpositions in 30 two-month old growing lambs, followed up during growth for six months. The in vivo observations demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed biomechanical hypothesis and open the way for possible engineering-guided strategies to support and optimize surgical procedures. (C) 2016 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

4.6
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