G Janiga1, P Berg2, S Sugiyama3, K Kono4, D A Steinman5. 1. From the Department of Fluid Dynamics and Technical Flows (G.J., P.B.), University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany janiga@ovgu.de. 2. From the Department of Fluid Dynamics and Technical Flows (G.J., P.B.), University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany. 3. Department of Neurosurgery (S.S.), Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Miyagi, Japan. 4. Department of Neurosurgery (K.K.), Wakayama Rosai Hospital, Wakayama, Japan. 5. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering (D.A.S.), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Rupture risk assessment for intracranial aneurysms remains challenging, and risk factors, including wall shear stress, are discussed controversially. The primary purpose of the presented challenge was to determine how consistently aneurysm rupture status and rupture site could be identified on the basis of computational fluid dynamics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two geometrically similar MCA aneurysms were selected, 1 ruptured, 1 unruptured. Participating computational fluid dynamics groups were blinded as to which case was ruptured. Participants were provided with digitally segmented lumen geometries and, for this phase of the challenge, were free to choose their own flow rates, blood rheologies, and so forth. Participants were asked to report which case had ruptured and the likely site of rupture. In parallel, lumen geometries were provided to a group of neurosurgeons for their predictions of rupture status and site. RESULTS: Of 26 participating computational fluid dynamics groups, 21 (81%) correctly identified the ruptured case. Although the known rupture site was associated with low and oscillatory wall shear stress, most groups identified other sites, some of which also experienced low and oscillatory shear. Of the 43 participating neurosurgeons, 39 (91%) identified the ruptured case. None correctly identified the rupture site. CONCLUSIONS: Geometric or hemodynamic considerations favor identification of rupture status; however, retrospective identification of the rupture site remains a challenge for both engineers and clinicians. A more precise understanding of the hemodynamic factors involved in aneurysm wall pathology is likely required for computational fluid dynamics to add value to current clinical decision-making regarding rupture risk.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Rupture risk assessment for intracranial aneurysms remains challenging, and risk factors, including wall shear stress, are discussed controversially. The primary purpose of the presented challenge was to determine how consistently aneurysm rupture status and rupture site could be identified on the basis of computational fluid dynamics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two geometrically similar MCA aneurysms were selected, 1 ruptured, 1 unruptured. Participating computational fluid dynamics groups were blinded as to which case was ruptured. Participants were provided with digitally segmented lumen geometries and, for this phase of the challenge, were free to choose their own flow rates, blood rheologies, and so forth. Participants were asked to report which case had ruptured and the likely site of rupture. In parallel, lumen geometries were provided to a group of neurosurgeons for their predictions of rupture status and site. RESULTS: Of 26 participating computational fluid dynamics groups, 21 (81%) correctly identified the ruptured case. Although the known rupture site was associated with low and oscillatory wall shear stress, most groups identified other sites, some of which also experienced low and oscillatory shear. Of the 43 participating neurosurgeons, 39 (91%) identified the ruptured case. None correctly identified the rupture site. CONCLUSIONS: Geometric or hemodynamic considerations favor identification of rupture status; however, retrospective identification of the rupture site remains a challenge for both engineers and clinicians. A more precise understanding of the hemodynamic factors involved in aneurysm wall pathology is likely required for computational fluid dynamics to add value to current clinical decision-making regarding rupture risk.
Authors: Juhana Frösen; Riikka Tulamo; Anders Paetau; Elisa Laaksamo; Miikka Korja; Aki Laakso; Mika Niemelä; Juha Hernesniemi Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 17.088
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: S L Curtis; M Bradley; P Wilde; J Aw; S Chakrabarti; M Hamilton; R Martin; M Turner; A G Stuart Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 3.825
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
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
Authors: Sarah N Lipp; Elizabeth E Niedert; Hannah L Cebull; Tyler C Diorio; Jessica L Ma; Sean M Rothenberger; Kimberly A Stevens Boster; Craig J Goergen Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Kristian Valen-Sendstad; Aslak W Bergersen; Yuji Shimogonya; Leonid Goubergrits; Jan Bruening; Jordi Pallares; Salvatore Cito; Senol Piskin; Kerem Pekkan; Arjan J Geers; Ignacio Larrabide; Saikiran Rapaka; Viorel Mihalef; Wenyu Fu; Aike Qiao; Kartik Jain; Sabine Roller; Kent-Andre Mardal; Ramji Kamakoti; Thomas Spirka; Neil Ashton; Alistair Revell; Nicolas Aristokleous; J Graeme Houston; Masanori Tsuji; Fujimaro Ishida; Prahlad G Menon; Leonard D Browne; Stephen Broderick; Masaaki Shojima; Satoshi Koizumi; Michael Barbour; Alberto Aliseda; Hernán G Morales; Thierry Lefèvre; Simona Hodis; Yahia M Al-Smadi; Justin S Tran; Alison L Marsden; Sreeja Vaippummadhom; G Albert Einstein; Alistair G Brown; Kristian Debus; Kuniyasu Niizuma; Sherif Rashad; Shin-Ichiro Sugiyama; M Owais Khan; Adam R Updegrove; Shawn C Shadden; Bart M W Cornelissen; Charles B L M Majoie; Philipp Berg; Sylvia Saalfield; Kenichi Kono; David A Steinman Journal: Cardiovasc Eng Technol Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 2.495