-
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,
Language English Country England, Great Britain
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH
- Finite Element Analysis * MeSH
- Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal * MeSH
- Aorta, Abdominal * MeSH
- Biomechanical Phenomena MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Stress, Mechanical * MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
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