Advertisement

Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 1111–1122 | Cite as

A computational fluid dynamics approach to determine white matter permeability

  • Marco VidottoEmail author
  • Daniela Botnariuc
  • Elena De Momi
  • Daniele Dini
Original Paper
  • 187 Downloads

Abstract

Glioblastomas represent a challenging problem with an extremely poor survival rate. Since these tumour cells have a highly invasive character, an effective surgical resection as well as chemotherapy and radiotherapy is very difficult. Convection-enhanced delivery (CED), a technique that consists in the injection of a therapeutic agent directly into the parenchyma, has shown encouraging results. Its efficacy depends on the ability to predict, in the pre-operative phase, the distribution of the drug inside the tumour. This paper proposes a method to compute a fundamental parameter for CED modelling outcomes, the hydraulic permeability, in three brain structures. Therefore, a bidimensional brain-like structure was built out of the main geometrical features of the white matter: axon diameter distribution extrapolated from electron microscopy images, extracellular space (ECS) volume fraction and ECS width. The axons were randomly allocated inside a defined border, and the ECS volume fraction as well as the ECS width maintained in a physiological range. To achieve this result, an outward packing method coupled with a disc shrinking technique was implemented. The fluid flow through the axons was computed by solving Navier–Stokes equations within the computational fluid dynamics solver ANSYS. From the fluid and pressure fields, an homogenisation technique allowed establishing the optimal representative volume element (RVE) size. The hydraulic permeability computed on the RVE was found in good agreement with experimental data from the literature.

Keywords

Convection-enhanced delivery Hydraulic permeability Representative volume element White matter 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We kindly thank Prof. Dr. Almut Schüz (Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics—Tübingen) for providing the TEM images dataset. Daniele Dini would like to acknowledge the support received from the EPSRC under the Established Career Fellowship Grant No. EP/N025954/1.

Funding

This project has received funding from the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 688279.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abbott NJ (2004) Evidence for bulk flow of brain interstitial fluid: significance for physiology and pathology. Neurochem Int 45(4):545–552Google Scholar
  2. ANSYS (2017) ANSYS fluent theory guide. ANSYS, CanonsburgGoogle Scholar
  3. Barua NU, Lowis SP, Woolley M, O’Sullivan S, Harrison R, Gill SS (2013) Robot-guided convection-enhanced delivery of carboplatin for advanced brainstem glioma. Acta Neurochir 155(8):1459–1465.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-013-1700-6 Google Scholar
  4. Barua NU, Hopkins K, Woolley M, O’Sullivan S, Harrison R, Edwards RJ, Bienemann AS, Wyatt MJ, Arshad A, Gill SS (2014) A novel implantable catheter system with transcutaneous port for intermittent convection-enhanced delivery of carboplatin for recurrent glioblastoma. Drug Deliv 7544(July 2017):1–7.  https://doi.org/10.3109/10717544.2014.908248 Google Scholar
  5. Bobo RH, Laske DW, Akbasak A, Morrison PF, Dedrick RL, Oldfield EH (1994) Convection-enhanced delivery of macromolecules in the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci 91(6):2076–2080Google Scholar
  6. Chen X, Papathanasiou T (2007) Micro-scale modeling of axial flow through unidirectional disordered fiber arrays. Compos Sci Technol 67(7–8):1286–1293Google Scholar
  7. Chen X, Papathanasiou TD (2008) The transverse permeability of disordered fiber arrays: a statistical correlation in terms of the mean nearest interfiber spacing. Transp Porous Media 71(2):233–251Google Scholar
  8. Chen X, Sarntinoranont M (2007) Biphasic finite element model of solute transport for direct infusion into nervous tissue. Ann Biomed Eng 35(12):2145–2158.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-007-9371-1 Google Scholar
  9. Crawford L, Rosch J, Putnam D (2016) Concepts, technologies, and practices for drug delivery past the blood-brain barrier to the central nervous system. J Control Release 240:251–266.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.12.041 Google Scholar
  10. Dias MR, Fernandes PR, Guedes JM, Hollister SJ (2012) Permeability analysis of scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Biomech 45(6):938–944.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.01.019 Google Scholar
  11. Diggle PJ (2003) Statistical analysis of spatial point patterns, vol 171, no 2. New York, p 159.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03572.x
  12. Dixon PM (2002) Ripley’s K function. Wiley StatsRef Stat Ref Online 3:1796–1803.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat07751 Google Scholar
  13. Drugan WJ, Willis JR (1996) A micromechanics-based nonlocal constitutive equation and estimates of representative volume element size for elastic composites. J Mech Phys Solids 44(4):497–524MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Du X, Ostoja-Starzewski M (2006) On the size of representative volume element for Darcy law in random media. Proc R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 462(2074):2949–2963.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2006.1704 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Dullien FA (2012) Porous media: fluid transport and pore structure. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Duval T, Stikov N, Cohen-Adad J (2016) Modeling white matter microstructure. Funct Neurol 31(4):217Google Scholar
  17. Ehlers W, Wagner A (2013) Multi-component modelling of human brain tissue: a contribution to the constitutive and computational description of deformation, flow and diffusion processes with application to the invasive drug-delivery problem. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 5842(March 2014):37–41.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2013.853754 Google Scholar
  18. Eshghinejadfard A, Daróczy L, Janiga G, Thévenin D (2016) Calculation of the permeability in porous media using the lattice Boltzmann method. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 1329(0):0–1.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2016.05.010 Google Scholar
  19. Feng YT, Han K, Owen DRJ (2003) Filling domains with disks: an advancing front approach. Int J Numer Methods Eng 56(5):699–713.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.583 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Franceschini G, Bigoni D, Regitnig P, Holzapfel G (2006) Brain tissue deforms similarly to filled elastomers and follows consolidation theory. J Mech Phys Solids 54(12):2592–2620.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2006.05.004 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Gebart BR (1992) Permeability of unidirectional reinforcements for rtm. J Compos Mater 26(8):1100–1133Google Scholar
  22. Gopi E (2007) Algorithm collections for digital signal processing applications using Matlab. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansson K, Jafari-Mamaghani M, Krieger P (2013) RipleyGUI: software for analyzing spatial patterns in 3D cell distributions. Front Neuroinformatics 7(April):5.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2013.00005 Google Scholar
  24. Haralick RM, Shapiro LG (1992) Computer and robot vision, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc, BostonGoogle Scholar
  25. Hitti K, Feghali S, Bernacki M (2016) Permeability computation on a representative volume element (RVE) of unidirectional disordered fiber arrays. J Comput Math 34(3):246–264.  https://doi.org/10.4208/jcm.1511-m2014-0119 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Jafari-Mamaghani M (2010) Spatial point pattern analysis of neurons using Ripley’s K-function in 3D. Front Neuroinformatics 4(May):1–10.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2010.00009 Google Scholar
  27. Jin BJ, Smith AJ, Verkman AS (2016) Spatial model of convective solute transport in brain extracellular space does not support a glymphatic mechanism. J Gen Physiol 148(6):489–501Google Scholar
  28. Kim HK, Mareci TH, Sarntinoranont M (2010) A voxelized model of direct infusion into the corpus callosum and hippocampus of the rat brain: model development and parameter analysis. Med Biol Eng Comput 27(6):41–51Google Scholar
  29. Kim JH, Astary GW, Kantorovich S, Mareci TH, Carney PR, Sarntinoranont M (2012) Voxelized computational model for convection-enhanced delivery in the rat ventral hippocampus: comparison with in vivo MR experimental studies. Ann Biomed Eng 40(9):2043–2058.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-012-0566-8 Google Scholar
  30. Kolyukhin D, Espedal M (2010) Numerical calculation of effective permeability by double randomization Monte Carlo method. Int J Numer Anal Model 7(4):607–618MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Lang G, Marcon E (2010) Testing randomness of spatial point patterns with the Ripley statistic.  https://doi.org/10.1051/ps/2012027. ArXiv e-prints arxiv:1006.1567
  32. Liewald D, Miller R, Logothetis N, Wagner HJ, Schüz A (2014) Distribution of axon diameters in cortical white matter: an electron-microscopic study on three human brains and a macaque. Biol Cybern 108(5):541–557.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-014-0626-2 Google Scholar
  33. Linninger AA, Somayaji MR, Erickson T, Guo X, Penn RD (2008) Computational methods for predicting drug transport in anisotropic and heterogeneous brain tissue. J Biomech 41(10):2176–2187.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.04.025 Google Scholar
  34. Marcon E, Traissac S, Lang G (2013) A statistical test for Ripley’s K function rejection of poisson null hypothesis. ISRN Ecol 2013:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/753475 Google Scholar
  35. McGuire S, Zaharoff D, Yuan F (2006) Nonlinear dependence of hydraulic conductivity on tissue deformation during intratumoral infusion. Ann Biomed Eng 34(7):1173–1181.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-006-9136-2 Google Scholar
  36. Mehta AI, Linninger A, Lesniak MS, Engelhard HH (2015) Current status of intratumoral therapy for glioblastoma. J Neuro-oncol 125(1):1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-015-1875-1 Google Scholar
  37. Montazeri H, Blocken B (2013) Cfd simulation of wind-induced pressure coefficients on buildings with and without balconies: validation and sensitivity analysis. Build Environ 60:137–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.11.012 Google Scholar
  38. Morrison PF, Chen MY, Chadwick RS, Lonser RR, Oldfield EH (1999) Focal delivery during direct infusion to brain: role of flow rate, catheter diameter, and tissue mechanics. Am J Physiol 277(4 Pt 2):R1218–R1229Google Scholar
  39. Nedanov PB, Advani SG (2002) Numerical computation of the fiber preform permeability tensor by the homogenization method. Polym Compos 23(5):758–770.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.10474 Google Scholar
  40. Netti PA, Berk DA, Swartz MA, Grodzinsky AJ, Jain RK (2000) Role of extracellular matrix assembly in interstitial transport in solid tumors. Cancer Res 60(9):2497–2503Google Scholar
  41. Nicholson C, Hrabětová S (2017) Brain extracellular space: the final frontier of neuroscience. Biophys J 113(10):2133–2142Google Scholar
  42. Nicholson C, Kamali-Zare P, Tao L (2011) Brain extracellular space as a diffusion barrier. Comput Vis Sci 14(7):309–325.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00791-012-0185-9
  43. Nield D, Bejan A (2013) Convection in porous media. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Ohno N, Terada N, Saitoh S, Ohno S (2007) Extracellular space in mouse cerebellar cortex revealed by in vivo cryotechnique. J Comp Neurol 505(3):292–301.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.21498 Google Scholar
  45. Olesen J, Gustavsson A, Svensson M, Wittchen HU, Jnsson B, on behalf of the CDBE2010 study group, the European Brain Council (2012) The economic cost of brain disorders in europe. Eur J Neurol 19(1):155–162.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2011.03590.x
  46. Patil RC, Bhalchandra A (2012) Brain tumour extraction from mri images using matlab. Int J Electron Commun Soft Comput Sci Eng (IJECSCSE) 2(1):1Google Scholar
  47. Pinela J, Kruz S, Miguel A, Reis A, Aydin M (2005) Permeability-porosity relationship assessment by 2d numerical simulations. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on transport phenomenaGoogle Scholar
  48. Raghavan R, Brady M (2011) Predictive models for pressure-driven fluid infusions into brain parenchyma. Phys Med Biol 56(19):6179–204.  https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/56/19/003 Google Scholar
  49. Raghavan R, Brady ML, Rodríguez-Ponce MI, Hartlep A, Pedain C, Sampson JH (2006) Convection-enhanced delivery of therapeutics for brain disease, and its optimization. Neurosurg Focus 20(4):E12.  https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2006.20.4.7 Google Scholar
  50. Raghavan R, Brady ML, Sampson JH (2016) Delivering therapy to target: improving the odds for successful drug development. Ther Deliv 7(7):457–481Google Scholar
  51. Ripley B (1976) The second-order analysis of stationary point processes. J Appl Prob 13(2):255–266MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Sarntinoranont M, Chen X, Zhao J, Mareci TH (2006) Computational model of interstitial transport in the spinal cord using diffusion tensor imaging. Ann Biomed Eng 34(8):1304–1321.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-006-9135-3 Google Scholar
  53. Smith JH, García JJ (2009) A nonlinear biphasic model of flow-controlled infusion in brain: fluid transport and tissue deformation analyses. J Biomech 42(13):2017–2025.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.06.014 Google Scholar
  54. Støverud KH, Darcis M, Helmig R, Hassanizadeh SM (2012) Modeling concentration distribution and deformation during convection-enhanced drug delivery into brain tissue. Transp Porous Media 92(1):119–143.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-011-9894-7 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  55. Swabb EA, Wei J, Gullino PM (1974) Diffusion and convection in normal and neoplastic tissues. Cancer Res 34(10):2814–22Google Scholar
  56. Syková E, Nicholson C (2008) Diffusion in brain extracellular space. Physiol Rev 88(4):1277–1340.  https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00027.2007.Diffusion Google Scholar
  57. Takano N, Zako M, Okazaki T, Terada K (2002) Microstructure-based evaluation of the influence of woven architecture on permeability by asymptotic homogenization theory. Compos Sci Technol 62(10–11):1347–1356.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-3538(02)00076-3 Google Scholar
  58. Tamayol A, Bahrami M (2009) Analytical determination of viscous permeability of fibrous porous media. Int J Heat Mass Transf 52(9–10):2407–2414zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. Tavner A, Roy TD, Hor K, Majimbi M, Joldes G, Wittek A, Bunt S, Miller K (2016) On the appropriateness of modelling brain parenchyma as a biphasic continuum. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 61:511–518Google Scholar
  60. Truscello S, Kerckhofs G, Van Bael S, Pyka G, Schrooten J, Van Oosterwyck H (2012) Prediction of permeability of regular scaffolds for skeletal tissue engineering: a combined computational and experimental study. Acta Biomater 8(4):1648–1658.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2011.12.021 Google Scholar
  61. Türkkan GE, Korkmaz S (2015) Determination of hydraulic conductivity using analytical and numerical methods applied to well and aquifer tests. Teknik Dergi 26(1):6969–6992Google Scholar
  62. Xu P, Yu B (2008) Developing a new form of permeability and Kozeny–Carman constant for homogeneous porous media by means of fractal geometry. Adv Water Resour 31(1):74–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2007.06.003 Google Scholar
  63. Yang X, Lu TJ, Kim T (2014) An analytical model for permeability of isotropic porous media. Phys Lett Sect A Gen At Solid State Phys 378(30–31):2308–2311.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2014.06.002 Google Scholar
  64. Yazdchi K, Srivastava S, Luding S (2011) Microstructural effects on the permeability of periodic fibrous porous media. Int J Multiph Flow 37(8):956–966.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2011.05.003 Google Scholar
  65. Zeng X, Endruweit A, Brown LP, Long AC (2015) Numerical prediction of in-plane permeability for multilayer woven fabrics with manufacture-induced deformation. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 77:266–274.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.03.027 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronics, Information and BioengineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringImperial College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Faculty of ScienceUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations