Literature DB >> 23445061

Variability of computational fluid dynamics solutions for pressure and flow in a giant aneurysm: the ASME 2012 Summer Bioengineering Conference CFD Challenge.

David A Steinman1, Yiemeng Hoi, Paul Fahy, Liam Morris, Michael T Walsh, Nicolas Aristokleous, Andreas S Anayiotos, Yannis Papaharilaou, Amirhossein Arzani, Shawn C Shadden, Philipp Berg, Gábor Janiga, Joris Bols, Patrick Segers, Neil W Bressloff, Merih Cibis, Frank H Gijsen, Salvatore Cito, Jordi Pallarés, Leonard D Browne, Jennifer A Costelloe, Adrian G Lynch, Joris Degroote, Jan Vierendeels, Wenyu Fu, Aike Qiao, Simona Hodis, David F Kallmes, Hardeep Kalsi, Quan Long, Vitaly O Kheyfets, Ender A Finol, Kenichi Kono, Adel M Malek, Alexandra Lauric, Prahlad G Menon, Kerem Pekkan, Mahdi Esmaily Moghadam, Alison L Marsden, Marie Oshima, Kengo Katagiri, Véronique Peiffer, Yumnah Mohamied, Spencer J Sherwin, Jens Schaller, Leonid Goubergrits, Gabriel Usera, Mariana Mendina, Kristian Valen-Sendstad, Damiaan F Habets, Jianping Xiang, Hui Meng, Yue Yu, George E Karniadakis, Nicholas Shaffer, Francis Loth.   

Abstract

Stimulated by a recent controversy regarding pressure drops predicted in a giant aneurysm with a proximal stenosis, the present study sought to assess variability in the prediction of pressures and flow by a wide variety of research groups. In phase I, lumen geometry, flow rates, and fluid properties were specified, leaving each research group to choose their solver, discretization, and solution strategies. Variability was assessed by having each group interpolate their results onto a standardized mesh and centerline. For phase II, a physical model of the geometry was constructed, from which pressure and flow rates were measured. Groups repeated their simulations using a geometry reconstructed from a micro-computed tomography (CT) scan of the physical model with the measured flow rates and fluid properties. Phase I results from 25 groups demonstrated remarkable consistency in the pressure patterns, with the majority predicting peak systolic pressure drops within 8% of each other. Aneurysm sac flow patterns were more variable with only a few groups reporting peak systolic flow instabilities owing to their use of high temporal resolutions. Variability for phase II was comparable, and the median predicted pressure drops were within a few millimeters of mercury of the measured values but only after accounting for submillimeter errors in the reconstruction of the life-sized flow model from micro-CT. In summary, pressure can be predicted with consistency by CFD across a wide range of solvers and solution strategies, but this may not hold true for specific flow patterns or derived quantities. Future challenges are needed and should focus on hemodynamic quantities thought to be of clinical interest.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23445061     DOI: 10.1115/1.4023382

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech Eng        ISSN: 0148-0731            Impact factor:   2.097


  30 in total

1.  Generalized versus patient-specific inflow boundary conditions in computational fluid dynamics simulations of cerebral aneurysmal hemodynamics.

Authors:  I G H Jansen; J J Schneiders; W V Potters; P van Ooij; R van den Berg; E van Bavel; H A Marquering; C B L M Majoie
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-03-20       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  The effect of inlet and outlet boundary conditions in image-based CFD modeling of aortic flow.

Authors:  Sudharsan Madhavan; Erica M Cherry Kemmerling
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 2.819

3.  Aneurysm size and the Windkessel effect: An analysis of contrast intensity in digital subtraction angiography.

Authors:  Ahmed E Hussein; Darian R Esfahani; Andreas Linninger; Fady T Charbel; Chih-Yang Hsu; Fady T Charbel; Ali Alaraj
Journal:  Interv Neuroradiol       Date:  2017-04-26       Impact factor: 1.610

4.  Patient-specific computational modeling of blood flow in the pulmonary arterial circulation.

Authors:  Vitaly O Kheyfets; Lourdes Rios; Triston Smith; Theodore Schroeder; Jeffrey Mueller; Srinivas Murali; David Lasorda; Anthony Zikos; Jennifer Spotti; John J Reilly; Ender A Finol
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  Multiscale modeling and simulation of brain blood flow.

Authors:  Paris Perdikaris; Leopold Grinberg; George Em Karniadakis
Journal:  Phys Fluids (1994)       Date:  2016-02-08       Impact factor: 3.521

6.  Initial Clinical Experience with AView-A Clinical Computational Platform for Intracranial Aneurysm Morphology, Hemodynamics, and Treatment Management.

Authors:  Jianping Xiang; Nicole Varble; Jason M Davies; Ansaar T Rai; Kenichi Kono; Shin-Ichiro Sugiyama; Mandy J Binning; Rabih G Tawk; Hoon Choi; Andrew J Ringer; Kenneth V Snyder; Elad I Levy; L Nelson Hopkins; Adnan H Siddiqui; Hui Meng
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 2.104

7.  Narrowing the Expertise Gap for Predicting Intracranial Aneurysm Hemodynamics: Impact of Solver Numerics versus Mesh and Time-Step Resolution.

Authors:  M O Khan; K Valen-Sendstad; D A Steinman
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 3.825

8.  Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH)-phase II: rupture risk assessment.

Authors:  Philipp Berg; Samuel Voß; Gábor Janiga; Sylvia Saalfeld; Aslak W Bergersen; Kristian Valen-Sendstad; Jan Bruening; Leonid Goubergrits; Andreas Spuler; Tin Lok Chiu; Anderson Chun On Tsang; Gabriele Copelli; Benjamin Csippa; György Paál; Gábor Závodszky; Felicitas J Detmer; Bong J Chung; Juan R Cebral; Soichiro Fujimura; Hiroyuki Takao; Christof Karmonik; Saba Elias; Nicole M Cancelliere; Mehdi Najafi; David A Steinman; Vitor M Pereira; Senol Piskin; Ender A Finol; Mariya Pravdivtseva; Prasanth Velvaluri; Hamidreza Rajabzadeh-Oghaz; Nikhil Paliwal; Hui Meng; Santhosh Seshadhri; Sreenivas Venguru; Masaaki Shojima; Sergey Sindeev; Sergey Frolov; Yi Qian; Yu-An Wu; Kent D Carlson; David F Kallmes; Dan Dragomir-Daescu; Oliver Beuing
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2019-05-03       Impact factor: 2.924

9.  Evaluation of challenges and limitations of mechanical thrombectomy using 3D printed neurovascular phantoms.

Authors:  Kelsey N Sommer; Mohammad Mahdi Shiraz Bhurwani; Maxim Mokin; Ciprian N Ionita
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2021-02-15

10.  Mind the gap: impact of computational fluid dynamics solution strategy on prediction of intracranial aneurysm hemodynamics and rupture status indicators.

Authors:  K Valen-Sendstad; D A Steinman
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2013-11-14       Impact factor: 3.825

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.