You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 11, Issue 8
  • Differences in hemodynamic characteristics under high packing density between the porous media model and finite element analysis in computational fluid dynamics of intracranial aneurysm virtual treatment

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Basic Science
Original research
Differences in hemodynamic characteristics under high packing density between the porous media model and finite element analysis in computational fluid dynamics of intracranial aneurysm virtual treatment
  1. Yeqing Jiang1,
  2. Liang Ge1,
  3. Ruoyu Di1,
  4. Gang Lu1,
  5. Lei Huang1,
  6. Gaohui Li2,
  7. Xiaochang Leng2,
  8. Sufang Zhang3,
  9. Hailin Wan1,
  10. Daoying Geng1,
  11. Jianping Xiang2,
  12. Xiaolong Zhang1
  1. 1 Department of Radiology, Huashan Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University, Shanghai, China
  2. 2 ArteryFlow Technology Co.,Ltd, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
  3. 3 Department of Radiology, Jing’an District Centre Hospital of Shanghai, Huashan Hospital Fudan University Jing’an Branch, Shanghai, China
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jianping Xiang, ArteryFlow Technology Co.,Ltd, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China; jianping.xiang{at}arteryflow.com and Professor Xiaolong Zhang, Department of Radiology, Huashan Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China; xiaolongzhang{at}fudan.edu.cn

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic differences among no sac (NOS), porous media (POM) and finite element analysis (FEA) models to investigate the recurrence-related risks for coiled intracranial aneurysms (IAs).

Methods The study enrolled 10 patients with 11 IAs who received simple coiling treatment and hemodynamic simulations were performed for all IAs using the above three models. Velocity, wall shear stress (WSS) and residual flow volume (RFV) were calculated and compared in order to assess the model differences for both aneurysm sac and parent vessel regions.

Results For parent artery regions, all three models produced similar flow patterns and quantification analysis did not indicate differences in velocity and WSS (p>0.05). For aneurysm sac regions, the FEA model resulted in higher sac-maximized (0.18 m/s vs 0.06 m/s) and sac-averaged velocity (0.013 m/s vs 0.007 m/s), and higher sac-averaged (0.55 Pa vs 0.36 Pa, p=0.006) and sac-maximized WSS (12.1 Pa vs 6.6 Pa) than the POM model. The differences in RFV between the POM and FEA models under 11 different isovelocity thresholds (0.0001 m/s, 0.001 m/s, 0.002 m/s, 0.005 m/s, 0.01 m/s, 0.02 m/s, 0.05 m/s, 0.1 m/s, 0.2 m/s, 0.5 m/s, and 1 m/s) showed that the POM RFV was generally larger than those of the FEA model.

Conclusions Compared with the FEA model, the POM model provides a lower velocity and WSS and higher RFV for the aneurysm sac, which could lead to incorrect estimates of the recurrent risk of coiled IAs under high packing density.

  • aneurysm
  • blood flow
  • intervention

https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014218

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • YJ and LG contributed equally.

    • Contributors XZ and JX conceived and designed the research. YJ acquired the data. YJ, LG, RD, GL, GHL and LH analyzed and interpreted the data. YJ, XL, SZ and HW performed the statistical analysis. XZ, DG and JX handled the funding and supervision. YJ and LG drafted the manuscript. All authors made critical revisions to the manuscript for important intellectual content and reviewed the final version of the manuscript.

    • Funding This study was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81771242 and 81371308).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent The Institution Review Board of Huashan hospital affiliated to Fudan university approved this retrospective study and waived the requirement for informed consent.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.