| Literature DB >> 28500311 |
Andres Ruiz-Soler1,2, Foad Kabinejadian3, Mark A Slevin4, Paulo J Bartolo2, Amir Keshmiri5.
Abstract
Graft failure is currently a major concern for medical practitioners in treating Peripheral Vascular Disease (PVD) and Coronary Artery Disease (CAD). It is now widely accepted that unfavourable haemodynamic conditions play an essential role in the formation and development of intimal hyperplasia, which is the main cause of graft failure. This paper uses Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to conduct a parametric study to enhance the design and performance of a novel prosthetic graft, which utilises internal ridge(s) to induce spiral flow. This design is primarily based on the identification of the blood flow as spiral in the whole arterial system and is believed to improve the graft longevity and patency rates at distal graft anastomoses. Four different design parameters were assessed in this work and the trailing edge orientation of the ridge was identified as the most important parameter to induce physiological swirling flow, while the height of the ridge also significantly contributed to the enhanced performance of this type of graft. Building on these conclusions, an enhanced configuration of spiral graft is proposed and compared against conventional and spiral grafts to reaffirm its potential benefits.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28500311 PMCID: PMC5431846 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-01930-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Schematics of (a) the computational model and (b) different ridge designs according to the dimensional specifications explained in Table 1.
Features of different configurations of ridge design and quantitative results in terms of pressure drop in the fluid domain, area-weighted average secondary velocity, spatial mean of wall shear stress in the host artery and percentage of cross-sectional area affected by recirculation.
| Cross-Sectional Designs | Trailing Edge Orientation | Number of Ridges | Pitch | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.3 | 0.25 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.174 | 0.141 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
|
| 0.197 | 0.25 | 0.385 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.174 | 0.141 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
|
| 180° | 180° | 180° | 0° | 90° | 180° | 270° | 180° | 0°, 180° | 60°, 180°, 300° | 180° | 180° | 180° |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 14.42 | 14.42 | 14.42 | 14.42 | 14.42 | 14.42 | 14.42 | 14.42 | 14.42 | 14.42 | 17.31 | 14.42 | 11.54 |
|
| 3.01 | 3.01 | 3.00 | 3.01 | 3.00 | 3.01 | 3.01 | 3.01 | 3.03 | 3.02 | 3.00 | 3.01 | 3.02 |
|
| 565.68 | 550.34 | 535.49 | 531.13 | 543.05 | 550.34 | 545.86 | 550.34 | 546.29 | 547.32 | 559.31 | 550.34 | 537.99 |
|
| 5.95 | 5.01 | 5.41 | 9.37 | 9.58 | 5.01 | 22.00 | 5.01 | 6.87 | 11.46 | 5.24 | 5.01 | 6.45 |
|
| 2.307 | 2.295 | 2.290 | 2.283 | 2.374 | 2.295 | 2.432 | 2.295 | 2.276 | 2.256 | 2.310 | 2.295 | 2.281 |
|
| 7.38% | 7.63% | 7.78% | 4.59% | 6.25% | 7.63% | 5.31% | 7.63% | 6.70% | 6.40% | 7.47% | 7.63% | 7.56% |
|
| 8.71% | 12.07% | 13.51% | 5.03% | 3.82% | 12.07% | 3.52% | 12.07% | 10.83% | 4.71% | 11.35% | 12.07% | 11.76% |
Figure 2Contours of secondary velocity and crossflow streamlines for different ridge designs at monitoring plane 3.
Figure 3Distributions of WSS onto the developed surface of the host artery for different ridge designs.
Figure 4Regions of retrograde flow with different designs at monitoring planes 1 and 2 (monitoring plane 3 is free of recirculation).
Figure 5Overall comparison of normalised results for different ridge designs.
Figure 6(a) Velocity waveform at the inlet and (b) contours of secondary velocity and crossflow streamlines at monitoring plane 3 and at peak (t1) and reversed (t2) flow phases.
Figure 7Distributions of (a) TAWSS, (b) TAWSSG, (c) OSI and (d) RRT onto the developed surface of the host artery for different designs of graft.