• Something wrong with this record ?

Importance of material model in wall stress prediction in abdominal aortic aneurysms

S. Polzer, TC. Gasser, J. Bursa, R. Staffa, R. Vlachovsky, V. Man, P. Skacel,

. 2013 ; 35 (9) : 1282-9.

Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

BACKGROUND: Results of biomechanical simulation of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) depend on the constitutive description of the wall. Based on in vitro and in vivo experimental data several constitutive models for the AAA wall have been proposed in the literature. Those models differ strongly from each other and their impact on the computed stress in biomechanical simulation is not clearly understood. METHODS: Finite element (FE) models of AAAs from 7 patients who underwent elective surgical repair were used to compute wall stresses. AAA geometry was reconstructed from CT angiography (CT-A) data and patient-specific (PS) constitutive descriptions of the wall were derived from planar biaxial testing of anterior wall tissue samples. In total 28 FE models were used, where the wall was described by either patient-specific or previously reported study-average properties. This data was derived from either uniaxial or biaxial in vitro testing. Computed wall stress fields were compared on node-by-node basis. RESULTS: Different constitutive models for the AAA wall cause significantly different predictions of wall stress. While study-average data from biaxial testing gives globally the same stress field as the patient-specific wall properties, the material model based on uniaxial test data overestimates the wall stress on average by 30 kPa or about 67% of the mean stress. A quasi-linear description based on the in vivo measured distensibility of the AAA wall leads to a completely altered stress field and overestimates the wall stress by about 75 kPa or about 167% of the mean stress. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated that the constitutive description of the wall is crucial for AAA wall stress prediction. Consequently, results obtained using different models should not be mutually compared unless different stress gradients across the wall are not taken into account. Highly nonlinear material models should be preferred when the response of AAA to increased blood pressure is investigated, while the quasi-linear model with high initial stiffness produces negligible stress gradients across the wall and thus, it is more appropriate when response to mean blood pressure is calculated.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc14051184
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20140411111238.0
007      
ta
008      
140401s2013 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.01.008 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)23434615
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Polzer, Stanislav
245    10
$a Importance of material model in wall stress prediction in abdominal aortic aneurysms / $c S. Polzer, TC. Gasser, J. Bursa, R. Staffa, R. Vlachovsky, V. Man, P. Skacel,
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Results of biomechanical simulation of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) depend on the constitutive description of the wall. Based on in vitro and in vivo experimental data several constitutive models for the AAA wall have been proposed in the literature. Those models differ strongly from each other and their impact on the computed stress in biomechanical simulation is not clearly understood. METHODS: Finite element (FE) models of AAAs from 7 patients who underwent elective surgical repair were used to compute wall stresses. AAA geometry was reconstructed from CT angiography (CT-A) data and patient-specific (PS) constitutive descriptions of the wall were derived from planar biaxial testing of anterior wall tissue samples. In total 28 FE models were used, where the wall was described by either patient-specific or previously reported study-average properties. This data was derived from either uniaxial or biaxial in vitro testing. Computed wall stress fields were compared on node-by-node basis. RESULTS: Different constitutive models for the AAA wall cause significantly different predictions of wall stress. While study-average data from biaxial testing gives globally the same stress field as the patient-specific wall properties, the material model based on uniaxial test data overestimates the wall stress on average by 30 kPa or about 67% of the mean stress. A quasi-linear description based on the in vivo measured distensibility of the AAA wall leads to a completely altered stress field and overestimates the wall stress by about 75 kPa or about 167% of the mean stress. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated that the constitutive description of the wall is crucial for AAA wall stress prediction. Consequently, results obtained using different models should not be mutually compared unless different stress gradients across the wall are not taken into account. Highly nonlinear material models should be preferred when the response of AAA to increased blood pressure is investigated, while the quasi-linear model with high initial stiffness produces negligible stress gradients across the wall and thus, it is more appropriate when response to mean blood pressure is calculated.
650    12
$a aorta abdominalis $7 D001012
650    12
$a aneurysma břišní aorty $7 D017544
650    _2
$a biomechanika $7 D001696
650    12
$a analýza metodou konečných prvků $7 D020342
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    12
$a mechanický stres $7 D013314
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Gasser, T Christian $u -
700    1_
$a Bursa, Jiri $u -
700    1_
$a Staffa, Robert $u -
700    1_
$a Vlachovsky, Robert $u -
700    1_
$a Man, Vojtech $u -
700    1_
$a Skacel, Pavel $u -
773    0_
$w MED00008431 $t Medical engineering & physics $x 1873-4030 $g Roč. 35, č. 9 (2013), s. 1282-9
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23434615 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20140401 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20140411111328 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1018320 $s 849764
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2013 $b 35 $c 9 $d 1282-9 $i 1873-4030 $m Medical engineering & physics $n Med Eng Phys $x MED00008431
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20140401

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...