OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential of wall stress analysis for the identification of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) at elevated risk of rupture in spite of small diameter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with small AAA, 10 asymptomatic, 10 symptomatic and 10 ruptured, were included. Demographic data and results from physical examinations were recorded in a retrospective fashion. After CT-evaluation and the creation of a patient specific 3D model, wall stress was calculated using the finite element method. RESULTS: No differences were observed in diameter between asymptomatic, symptomatic or ruptured aneurysms (5.1+/-0.2 cm vs. 5.1+/-0.2 cm vs. 5.3+/-0.2 cm respectively; p=0.57). Peak aortic wall stress at maximal systolic blood pressure is significantly higher in ruptured than asymptomatic aneurysms (51.7+/-2.4 N/cm(2) vs. 39.7+/-3.3 N/cm(2) respectively; p=0.04). Wall stress analysis at uniform blood pressure, performed to correct for higher blood pressure in the symptomatic and rupture group did not result in significant differences in peak wall stress (asymptomatic 31.7+/-2.3 N/cm(2); symptomatic 30.5+/-1.3 N/cm(2); rupture 36.7+/-4.0 N/cm(2); p=0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Wall stress analysis at maximal systolic blood pressure is a promising technique to detect aneurysms at elevated aneurysm rupture risk. Since no significant differences were found at uniform blood pressure, the need for adequate blood pressure control in aneurysm patients is reiterated.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential of wall stress analysis for the identification of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) at elevated risk of rupture in spite of small diameter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with small AAA, 10 asymptomatic, 10 symptomatic and 10 ruptured, were included. Demographic data and results from physical examinations were recorded in a retrospective fashion. After CT-evaluation and the creation of a patient specific 3D model, wall stress was calculated using the finite element method. RESULTS: No differences were observed in diameter between asymptomatic, symptomatic or ruptured aneurysms (5.1+/-0.2 cm vs. 5.1+/-0.2 cm vs. 5.3+/-0.2 cm respectively; p=0.57). Peak aortic wall stress at maximal systolic blood pressure is significantly higher in ruptured than asymptomatic aneurysms (51.7+/-2.4 N/cm(2) vs. 39.7+/-3.3 N/cm(2) respectively; p=0.04). Wall stress analysis at uniform blood pressure, performed to correct for higher blood pressure in the symptomatic and rupture group did not result in significant differences in peak wall stress (asymptomatic 31.7+/-2.3 N/cm(2); symptomatic 30.5+/-1.3 N/cm(2); rupture 36.7+/-4.0 N/cm(2); p=0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Wall stress analysis at maximal systolic blood pressure is a promising technique to detect aneurysms at elevated aneurysm rupture risk. Since no significant differences were found at uniform blood pressure, the need for adequate blood pressure control in aneurysmpatients is reiterated.
Authors: Judy Shum; Giampaolo Martufi; Elena Di Martino; Christopher B Washington; Joseph Grisafi; Satish C Muluk; Ender A Finol Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2010-10-02 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: B J Doyle; P A Grace; E G Kavanagh; P E Burke; F Wallis; M T Walsh; T M McGloughlin Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: Barry J Doyle; Timothy J Corbett; Anthony Callanan; Michael T Walsh; David A Vorp; Timothy M McGloughlin Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: M Breeuwer; S de Putter; U Kose; L Speelman; K Visser; F Gerritsen; R Hoogeveen; R Krams; H van den Bosch; J Buth; T Gunther; B Wolters; E van Dam; F van de Vosse Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 2.602