A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A simplified method to account for wall motion in patient-specific blood flow simulations of aortic dissection: Comparison with fluid-structure interaction. | LitMetric

Aortic dissection (AD) is a complex and highly patient-specific vascular condition difficult to treat. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) can aid the medical management of this pathology, yet its modelling and simulation are challenging. One aspect usually disregarded when modelling AD is the motion of the vessel wall, which has been shown to significantly impact simulation results. Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) methods are difficult to implement and are subject to assumptions regarding the mechanical properties of the vessel wall, which cannot be retrieved non-invasively. This paper presents a simplified 'moving-boundary method' (MBM) to account for the motion of the vessel wall in type-B AD CFD simulations, which can be tuned with non-invasive clinical images (e.g. 2D cine-MRI). The method is firstly validated against the 1D solution of flow through an elastic straight tube; it is then applied to a type-B AD case study and the results are compared to a state-of-the-art, full FSI simulation. Results show that the proposed method can capture the main effects due to the wall motion on the flow field: the average relative difference between flow and pressure waves obtained with the FSI and MBM simulations was less than 1.8% and 1.3%, respectively and the wall shear stress indices were found to have a similar distribution. Moreover, compared to FSI, MBM has the advantage to be less computationally expensive (requiring half of the time of an FSI simulation) and easier to implement, which are important requirements for clinical translation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2018.04.014DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

vessel wall
12
wall motion
8
aortic dissection
8
fluid-structure interaction
8
motion vessel
8
fsi simulation
8
fsi mbm
8
wall
6
fsi
5
simplified method
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!