Sylvia Saalfeld1,2, Samuel Voß3,4, Oliver Beuing5,4, Bernhard Preim6,4, Philipp Berg3,4. 1. Department of Simulation and Graphics, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Universitätsplatz 2, 39106, Magdeburg, Germany. sylvia.saalfeld@ovgu.de. 2. Research Campus STIMULATE, Magdeburg, Germany. sylvia.saalfeld@ovgu.de. 3. Department of Fluid Dynamics and Technical Flows, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Universitätsplatz 2, 39106, Magdeburg, Germany. 4. Research Campus STIMULATE, Magdeburg, Germany. 5. University Hospital Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany. 6. Department of Simulation and Graphics, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Universitätsplatz 2, 39106, Magdeburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Image-based hemodynamic simulations have great potential for precise blood flow predictions in intracranial aneurysms. Due to model assumptions and simplifications with respect to boundary conditions, clinical acceptance remains limited. METHODS: Within this study, we analyzed the influence of outflow-splitting approaches on multiple aneurysm studies and present a new outflow-splitting approach that takes the precise morphological vessel cross sections into account. We provide a detailed comparison of five outflow strategies considering eight intracranial aneurysms: zero-pressure configuration (1), a flow splitting inspired by Murray's law with a square (2) and a cubic (3) vessel diameter, a flow splitting incorporating vessel bifurcations based on circular vessel cross sections (4) and our novel flow splitting including vessel bifurcations and anatomical vessel cross sections (5). Other boundary conditions remain constant. For each simulation and each aneurysm, we conducted an evaluation based on common hemodynamic parameters, e.g., normalized wall shear stress and inflow concentration index. RESULTS: The comparison of five outflow strategies for image-based simulations shows a large variability regarding the parameters of interest. Qualitatively, our strategy based on anatomical cross sections yields a more uniform flow rate distribution with increased aneurysm inflow rates. The commonly used zero-pressure approach shows the largest variations, especially for more distal aneurysms. A rank ordering of multiple aneurysms in one patient might still be possible, since the ordering appeared to be independent of the outflow strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The results reveal that outlet boundary conditions have a crucial impact on image-based blood flow simulations, especially for multiple aneurysm studies. We could confirm the advantages of the more complex outflow-splitting model (4) including an incremental improvement (5) compared to strategies (1), (2) and (3) for this application scenario. Furthermore, we discourage from using zero-pressure configurations that lack a physiological basis.
PURPOSE: Image-based hemodynamic simulations have great potential for precise blood flow predictions in intracranial aneurysms. Due to model assumptions and simplifications with respect to boundary conditions, clinical acceptance remains limited. METHODS: Within this study, we analyzed the influence of outflow-splitting approaches on multiple aneurysm studies and present a new outflow-splitting approach that takes the precise morphological vessel cross sections into account. We provide a detailed comparison of five outflow strategies considering eight intracranial aneurysms: zero-pressure configuration (1), a flow splitting inspired by Murray's law with a square (2) and a cubic (3) vessel diameter, a flow splitting incorporating vessel bifurcations based on circular vessel cross sections (4) and our novel flow splitting including vessel bifurcations and anatomical vessel cross sections (5). Other boundary conditions remain constant. For each simulation and each aneurysm, we conducted an evaluation based on common hemodynamic parameters, e.g., normalized wall shear stress and inflow concentration index. RESULTS: The comparison of five outflow strategies for image-based simulations shows a large variability regarding the parameters of interest. Qualitatively, our strategy based on anatomical cross sections yields a more uniform flow rate distribution with increased aneurysm inflow rates. The commonly used zero-pressure approach shows the largest variations, especially for more distal aneurysms. A rank ordering of multiple aneurysms in one patient might still be possible, since the ordering appeared to be independent of the outflow strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The results reveal that outlet boundary conditions have a crucial impact on image-based blood flow simulations, especially for multiple aneurysm studies. We could confirm the advantages of the more complex outflow-splitting model (4) including an incremental improvement (5) compared to strategies (1), (2) and (3) for this application scenario. Furthermore, we discourage from using zero-pressure configurations that lack a physiological basis.
Authors: Luca Antiga; Marina Piccinelli; Lorenzo Botti; Bogdan Ene-Iordache; Andrea Remuzzi; David A Steinman Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2008-11-11 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Y Onishi; K Aoki; K Amaya; T Shimizu; H Isoda; Y Takehara; H Sakahara; T Kosugi Journal: Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 2.747
Authors: Kristian Valen-Sendstad; Marina Piccinelli; Resmi KrishnankuttyRema; David A Steinman Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Philipp Berg; Christoph Roloff; Oliver Beuing; Samuel Voss; Shin-Ichiro Sugiyama; Nicolas Aristokleous; Andreas S Anayiotos; Neil Ashton; Alistair Revell; Neil W Bressloff; Alistair G Brown; Bong Jae Chung; Juan R Cebral; Gabriele Copelli; Wenyu Fu; Aike Qiao; Arjan J Geers; Simona Hodis; Dan Dragomir-Daescu; Emily Nordahl; Yildirim Bora Suzen; Muhammad Owais Khan; Kristian Valen-Sendstad; Kenichi Kono; Prahlad G Menon; Priti G Albal; Otto Mierka; Raphael Münster; Hernán G Morales; Odile Bonnefous; Jan Osman; Leonid Goubergrits; Jordi Pallares; Salvatore Cito; Alberto Passalacqua; Senol Piskin; Kerem Pekkan; Susana Ramalho; Nelson Marques; Stéphane Sanchi; Kristopher R Schumacher; Jess Sturgeon; Helena Švihlová; Jaroslav Hron; Gabriel Usera; Mariana Mendina; Jianping Xiang; Hui Meng; David A Steinman; Gábor Janiga Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.097
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 Voß; S Glaßer; T Hoffmann; O Beuing; S Weigand; K Jachau; B Preim; D Thévenin; G Janiga; P Berg Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2016-09-18 Impact factor: 2.238
Authors: Sylvia Saalfeld; Janneck Stahl; Jana Korte; Laurel Morgan Miller Marsh; Bernhard Preim; Oliver Beuing; Yurii Cherednychenko; Daniel Behme; Philipp Berg Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.003