I G H Jansen1, J J Schneiders2, W V Potters2, P van Ooij3, R van den Berg2, E van Bavel4, H A Marquering5, C B L M Majoie2. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (I.G.H.J., J.J.S., W.V.P., R.B., H.A.M., C.B.L.M.M.) i.g.jansen@amc.uva.nl. 2. From the Departments of Radiology (I.G.H.J., J.J.S., W.V.P., R.B., H.A.M., C.B.L.M.M.). 3. Department of Radiology (P.O.), Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Biomedical Engineering and Physics (E.T.B., H.A.M.), Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. From the Departments of Radiology (I.G.H.J., J.J.S., W.V.P., R.B., H.A.M., C.B.L.M.M.)Biomedical Engineering and Physics (E.T.B., H.A.M.), Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Attempts have been made to associate intracranial aneurysmal hemodynamics with aneurysm growth and rupture status. Hemodynamics in aneurysms is traditionally determined with computational fluid dynamics by using generalized inflow boundary conditions in a parent artery. Recently, patient-specific inflow boundary conditions are being implemented more frequently. Our purpose was to compare intracranial aneurysm hemodynamics based on generalized versus patient-specific inflow boundary conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 36 patients, geometric models of aneurysms were determined by using 3D rotational angiography. 2D phase-contrast MR imaging velocity measurements of the parent artery were performed. Computational fluid dynamics simulations were performed twice: once by using patient-specific phase-contrast MR imaging velocity profiles and once by using generalized Womersley profiles as inflow boundary conditions. Resulting mean and maximum wall shear stress and oscillatory shear index values were analyzed, and hemodynamic characteristics were qualitatively compared. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis showed statistically significant differences for mean and maximum wall shear stress values between both inflow boundary conditions (P < .001). Qualitative assessment of hemodynamic characteristics showed differences in 21 cases: high wall shear stress location (n = 8), deflection location (n = 3), lobulation wall shear stress (n = 12), and/or vortex and inflow jet stability (n = 9). The latter showed more instability for the generalized inflow boundary conditions in 7 of 9 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Using generalized and patient-specific inflow boundary conditions for computational fluid dynamics results in different wall shear stress magnitudes and hemodynamic characteristics. Generalized inflow boundary conditions result in more vortices and inflow jet instabilities. This study emphasizes the necessity of patient-specific inflow boundary conditions for calculation of hemodynamics in cerebral aneurysms by using computational fluid dynamics techniques.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Attempts have been made to associate intracranial aneurysmal hemodynamics with aneurysm growth and rupture status. Hemodynamics in aneurysms is traditionally determined with computational fluid dynamics by using generalized inflow boundary conditions in a parent artery. Recently, patient-specific inflow boundary conditions are being implemented more frequently. Our purpose was to compare intracranial aneurysm hemodynamics based on generalized versus patient-specific inflow boundary conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 36 patients, geometric models of aneurysms were determined by using 3D rotational angiography. 2D phase-contrast MR imaging velocity measurements of the parent artery were performed. Computational fluid dynamics simulations were performed twice: once by using patient-specific phase-contrast MR imaging velocity profiles and once by using generalized Womersley profiles as inflow boundary conditions. Resulting mean and maximum wall shear stress and oscillatory shear index values were analyzed, and hemodynamic characteristics were qualitatively compared. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis showed statistically significant differences for mean and maximum wall shear stress values between both inflow boundary conditions (P < .001). Qualitative assessment of hemodynamic characteristics showed differences in 21 cases: high wall shear stress location (n = 8), deflection location (n = 3), lobulation wall shear stress (n = 12), and/or vortex and inflow jet stability (n = 9). The latter showed more instability for the generalized inflow boundary conditions in 7 of 9 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Using generalized and patient-specific inflow boundary conditions for computational fluid dynamics results in different wall shear stress magnitudes and hemodynamic characteristics. Generalized inflow boundary conditions result in more vortices and inflow jet instabilities. This study emphasizes the necessity of patient-specific inflow boundary conditions for calculation of hemodynamics in cerebral aneurysms by using computational fluid dynamics techniques.
Authors: P van Ooij; J J Schneiders; H A Marquering; C B Majoie; E van Bavel; A J Nederveen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jianping Xiang; Sabareesh K Natarajan; Markus Tremmel; Ding Ma; J Mocco; L Nelson Hopkins; Adnan H Siddiqui; Elad I Levy; Hui Meng Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-11-24 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Yuichi Murayama; Yih Lin Nien; Gary Duckwiler; Y Pierre Gobin; Reza Jahan; John Frazee; Neil Martin; Fernando Viñuela Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Zhenglun Alan Wei; Connor Huddleston; Phillip M Trusty; Shelly Singh-Gryzbon; Mark A Fogel; Alessandro Veneziani; Ajit P Yoganathan Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: W Coenen; C Gutiérrez-Montes; S Sincomb; E Criado-Hidalgo; K Wei; K King; V Haughton; C Martínez-Bazán; A L Sánchez; J C Lasheras Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Pim van Ooij; Alexander L Powell; Wouter V Potters; James C Carr; Michael Markl; Alex J Barker Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 4.813