PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Yeqing Jiang AU - Liang Ge AU - Ruoyu Di AU - Gang Lu AU - Lei Huang AU - Gaohui Li AU - Xiaochang Leng AU - Sufang Zhang AU - Hailin Wan AU - Daoying Geng AU - Jianping Xiang AU - Xiaolong Zhang TI - 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 AID - 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014218 DP - 2019 Aug 01 TA - Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery PG - 853--858 VI - 11 IP - 8 4099 - http://jnis.bmj.com/content/11/8/853.short 4100 - http://jnis.bmj.com/content/11/8/853.full SO - J NeuroIntervent Surg2019 Aug 01; 11 AB - 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.