C Chnafa1, O Brina2, V M Pereira2, D A Steinman3. 1. From the Biomedical Simulation Laboratory (C.C., D.A.S.), Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Joint Division of Medical Imaging (O.B., V.M.P.), Department of Medical Imaging and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. From the Biomedical Simulation Laboratory (C.C., D.A.S.), Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada steinman@mie.utoronto.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Computational fluid dynamics simulations of neurovascular diseases are impacted by various modeling assumptions and uncertainties, including outlet boundary conditions. Many studies of intracranial aneurysms, for example, assume zero pressure at all outlets, often the default ("do-nothing") strategy, with no physiological basis. Others divide outflow according to the outlet diameters cubed, nominally based on the more physiological Murray's law but still susceptible to subjective choices about the segmented model extent. Here we demonstrate the limitations and impact of these outflow strategies, against a novel "splitting" method introduced here. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With our method, the segmented lumen is split into its constituent bifurcations, where flow divisions are estimated locally using a power law. Together these provide the global outflow rate boundary conditions. The impact of outflow strategy on flow rates was tested for 70 cases of MCA aneurysm with 0D simulations. The impact on hemodynamic indices used for rupture status assessment was tested for 10 cases with 3D simulations. RESULTS: Differences in flow rates among the various strategies were up to 70%, with a non-negligible impact on average and oscillatory wall shear stresses in some cases. Murray-law and splitting methods gave flow rates closest to physiological values reported in the literature; however, only the splitting method was insensitive to arbitrary truncation of the model extent. CONCLUSIONS: Cerebrovascular simulations can depend strongly on the outflow strategy. The default zero-pressure method should be avoided in favor of Murray-law or splitting methods, the latter being released as an open-source tool to encourage the standardization of outflow strategies.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Computational fluid dynamics simulations of neurovascular diseases are impacted by various modeling assumptions and uncertainties, including outlet boundary conditions. Many studies of intracranial aneurysms, for example, assume zero pressure at all outlets, often the default ("do-nothing") strategy, with no physiological basis. Others divide outflow according to the outlet diameters cubed, nominally based on the more physiological Murray's law but still susceptible to subjective choices about the segmented model extent. Here we demonstrate the limitations and impact of these outflow strategies, against a novel "splitting" method introduced here. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With our method, the segmented lumen is split into its constituent bifurcations, where flow divisions are estimated locally using a power law. Together these provide the global outflow rate boundary conditions. The impact of outflow strategy on flow rates was tested for 70 cases of MCA aneurysm with 0D simulations. The impact on hemodynamic indices used for rupture status assessment was tested for 10 cases with 3D simulations. RESULTS: Differences in flow rates among the various strategies were up to 70%, with a non-negligible impact on average and oscillatory wall shear stresses in some cases. Murray-law and splitting methods gave flow rates closest to physiological values reported in the literature; however, only the splitting method was insensitive to arbitrary truncation of the model extent. CONCLUSIONS: Cerebrovascular simulations can depend strongly on the outflow strategy. The default zero-pressure method should be avoided in favor of Murray-law or splitting methods, the latter being released as an open-source tool to encourage the standardization of outflow strategies.
Authors: Alberto Marzo; Pankaj Singh; Ignacio Larrabide; Alessandro Radaelli; Stuart Coley; Matt Gwilliam; Iain D Wilkinson; Patricia Lawford; Philippe Reymond; Umang Patel; Alejandro Frangi; D Rod Hose Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2010-10-23 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Kristian Valen-Sendstad; Marina Piccinelli; Resmi KrishnankuttyRema; David A Steinman Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: J J Schneiders; H A Marquering; L Antiga; R van den Berg; E VanBavel; C B Majoie Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Juan R Cebral; Marcelo A Castro; Sunil Appanaboyina; Christopher M Putman; Daniel Millan; Alejandro F Frangi Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Tor Ingebrigtsen; Michael K Morgan; Ken Faulder; Linda Ingebrigtsen; Trygve Sparr; Henrik Schirmer Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Sylvia Saalfeld; Samuel Voß; Oliver Beuing; Bernhard Preim; Philipp Berg Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 2.924
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: Naomi Larsen; Charlotte Flüh; Sylvia Saalfeld; Samuel Voß; Georg Hille; David Trick; Fritz Wodarg; Michael Synowitz; Olav Jansen; Philipp Berg Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Vanessa M Swiatek; Belal Neyazi; Jorge A Roa; Mario Zanaty; Edgar A Samaniego; Daizo Ishii; Yongjun Lu; I Erol Sandalcioglu; Sylvia Saalfeld; Philipp Berg; David M Hasan Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 5.315
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