Computational study on hemodynamic changes in patient-specific proximal neck angulation of abdominal aortic aneurysm with time-varying velocity

  • Yousif A. Algabri
  • Sorracha Rookkapan
  • Vera Gramina
  • Daniel M. Espino
  • Surapong ChatpunEmail author
Scientific Paper


Aneurysms are considered as a critical cardiovascular disease worldwide when they rupture. The clinical understanding of geometrical impact on the flow behaviour and biomechanics of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is progressively developing. Proximal neck angulations of AAAs are believed to influence the hemodynamic changes and wall shear stress (WSS) within AAAs. Our aim was to perform pulsatile simulations using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for patient-specific geometry to investigate the influence of severe angular (≥ 60°) neck on AAA’s hemodynamic and wall shear stress. The patient’s geometrical characteristics were obtained from a computed tomography images database of AAA patients. The AAA geometry was reconstructed using Mimics software. In computational method, blood was assumed Newtonian fluid and an inlet varying velocity waveform in a cardiac cycle was assigned. The CFD study was performed with ANSYS software. The results of flow behaviours indicated that the blood flow through severe bending of angular neck leads to high turbulence and asymmetry of flows within the aneurysm sac resulting in blood recirculation. The high wall shear stress (WSS) occurred near the AAA neck and on surface of aneurysm sac. This study explained and showed flow behaviours and WSS progression within high angular neck AAA and risk prediction of abdominal aorta rupture. We expect that the visualization of blood flow and hemodynamic changes resulted from CFD simulation could be as an extra tool to assist clinicians during a decision making when estimation the risks of interventional procedures.


Abdominal aortic aneurysm Angulated neck Computational fluid dynamics Wall shear stress Hemodynamic Computed tomography 





Abdominal aortic aneurysms


Computer-aided design


Computational fluid dynamics


Computed tomography


Cardiovascular disease


Digital imaging and communications in medicine


Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair


Intraluminal thrombus


Magnetic resonance


Region of interest




User-defined function


Wall shear stress



The authors wish to thank Mr. Sumrit Ruangchan and the radiology department, faculty of medicine, Prince of Songkla University for assisting with and providing the patient CT images, data and clinical suggestions.


This study was funded by the Thailand’s Education Hub for Southern Region of ASEAN Countries (TEH-AC) scholarship given to the Mr. Yousif A. Algabri and the thesis support funding from the graduate school, Prince of Songkla University. This work was also supported by a Researcher Links grant, ID 2017-RLTG8-10538, under the Newton-TRF Fund partnership. The grant is funded by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Thailand Research Fund (TRF) (PDG61W0013) and delivered by the British Council.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Only images from patient-specific data were used in this study under the ethical approval acquired from Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee, Prince of Songkla University under number REC.61-010-25-2.

Supplementary material

13246_2019_728_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1032 KB)


  1. 1.
    Townsend N, Wilson L, Bhatnagar P, Wickramasinghe K, Rayner M, Nichols M (2016) Cardiovascular disease in Europe: Epidemiological update 2016. Eur Heart J 37:3232–3245. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barquera S, Pedroza-Tobías A, Medina C, Hernández-Barrera L, Bibbins-Domingo K, Lozano R, Moran AE (2015) Global Overview of the Epidemiology of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease. Arch Med Res 46:328–338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dua MM, Dalman RL (2010) Hemodynamic Influences on abdominal aortic aneurysm disease: Application of biomechanics to aneurysm pathophysiology. Vascul Pharmacol 53:11–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Humphrey JD, Holzapfel GA (2012) Mechanics, mechanobiology, and modeling of human abdominal aorta and aneurysms. J Biomech 45:805–814. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lozowy RJ, Kuhn DC, Ducas AA, Boyd AJ (2017) The Relationship Between Pulsatile Flow Impingement and Intraluminal Thrombus Deposition in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms. Cardiovasc Eng Technol 8:57–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drewe CJ, Parker LP, Kelsey LJ, Norman PE, Powell JT, Doyle BJ (2017) Haemodynamics and stresses in abdominal aortic aneurysms: A fluid-structure interaction study into the effect of proximal neck and iliac bifurcation angle. J Biomech 60:150–156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Raut SS, Chandra S, Shum J, Finol EA (2013) The role of geometric and biomechanical factors in abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk assessment. Ann Biomed Eng 41:1459–1477. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arzani A, Suh GY, Dalman RL, Shadden SC (2014) A longitudinal comparison of hemodynamics and intraluminal thrombus deposition in abdominal aortic aneurysms. Am J Physiol Circ Physiol 307:H1786–H1795. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ailawadi G, Eliason JL, Upchurch GR (2003) Current concepts in the pathogenesis of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg 38:584–588. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rissland P, Alemu Y, Einav S, Ricotta J, Bluestein D (2009) Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Risk of Rupture: Patient-Specific FSI Simulations Using Anisotropic Model. J Biomech Eng 131:31001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kleinstreuer C, Li Z (2006) Analysis and computer program for rupture-risk prediction of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Biomed Eng Online 5:5–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li Z, Kleinstreuer C (2005) A new wall stress equation for aneurysm-rupture prediction. Ann Biomed Eng 33:209–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Böckler D, Holden A, Krievins D, de Vries JP, Peters AS, Geisbüsch P, Reijnen M (2016) Extended use of endovascular aneurysm sealing for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Semin Vasc Surg 29:106–113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Argani LP, Torella F, Fisher RK, McWilliams RG, Wall ML, Movchan AB (2017) Deformation and dynamic response of abdominal aortic aneurysm sealing. Sci Rep 7:17712. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Bruin JL, Brownrigg JRW, Karthikesalingam A, Patterson BO, Holt PJ, Hinchliffe RJ, Morgan RA, Loftus IM, Thompson MM (2015) Endovascular aneurysm sealing for the treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Endovasc Ther 22:283–287. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giuma SKB, Osman K, Kadir MRA (2013) Fluid structure interaction analysis in abdominal aortic aneurysms: Influence of diameter, length, and distal neck. J Med Imaging Heal Informatics 3:514–522. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xenos M, Alemu Y, Zamfir D, Einav S, Ricotta JJ, Labropoulos N, Tassiopoulos A, Bluestein D (2010) The effect of angulation in abdominal aortic aneurysms: Fluid-structure interaction simulations of idealized geometries. Med Biol Eng Comput 48:1175–1190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Assar AN, Zarins CK (2009) Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: A surgical emergency with many clinical presentations. Postgrad Med J 85:268–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Damme H, Sakalihasan N, Limet R (2005) Factors promoting rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Acta Chir Belg 105:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wolf YG, Thomas WS, Brennan FJ, Goff WG, Sise MJ, Berntein EF (1994) Computed tomography scanning findings associated with rapid expansion of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 20:529–538. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blanchard JF (1999) Epidemiology of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Epidemiol Rev 21:207–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sternbergh WC, Carter G, York JW, Yoselevitz M, Money SR (2002) Aortic neck angulation predicts adverse outcome with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 35:482–486. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gray RA, Pathmanathan P (2018) Patient-Specific Cardiovascular Computational Modeling: Diversity of Personalization and Challenges. J Cardiovasc Transl Res 11:80–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chaichana T, Sun Z, Jewkes J (2012) Investigation of the haemodynamic environment of bifurcation plaques within the left coronary artery in realistic patient models based on CT images. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 35:231–236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morris PD, Narracott A, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Silva Soto DA, Hsiao S, Lungu A, Evans P, Bressloff NW, Lawford PV, Hose DR, Gunn JP (2016) Computational fluid dynamics modelling in cardiovascular medicine. Heart 102:18–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chung B, Cebral JR (2014) CFD for Evaluation and Treatment Planning of Aneurysms: Review of Proposed Clinical Uses and Their Challenges. Ann Biomed Eng 43:122–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tseng FS, Soong TK, Syn N, Ong CW, liangb LH, Choongc AM (2017) Computational fluid dynamics in complex aortic surgery: applications, prospects and challenges. J Surg Simul 4:1–4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Bakel TMJ, Lau KD, Hirsch-Romano J, Trimarchi S, Dorfman AL, Figueroa CA (2018) Patient-Specific Modeling of Hemodynamics: Supporting Surgical Planning in a Fontan Circulation Correction. J Cardiovasc Transl Res 11:145–155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Prakobkarn A, Ina N, Saeheng S, Chatpun S (2017) Carotid artery stenosis pre-assessment by relationship derived from two-dimensional patient-specific model and throat velocity ratio. World J Model Simul 1:3–11Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carty G, Chatpun S, Espino DM (2016) Modeling Blood Flow Through Intracranial Aneurysms: A Comparison of Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Viscosity. J Med Biol Eng 36:396–409. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Owen B, Lowe C, Ashton N, Mandal P, Rogers S, Wein W, McCollum C, Revell A (2016) Computational hemodynamics of abdominal aortic aneurysms: Three-dimensional ultrasound versus computed tomography. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med 230:201–210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Raghavan ML, Vorp DA, Federle MP, Makaroun MS, Webster MW (2000) Wall stress distribution on three-dimensionally reconstructed models of human abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg 31:760–769. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    del Álamo JC, Marsden AL, Lasherasa JC (2009) Recent Advances in the Application of Computational Mechanics to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease. Rev Esp Cardiol 62:781–805. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fillinger MF, Marra SP, Raghavan ML, Kennedy FE (2003) Prediction of rupture risk in abdominal aortic aneurysm during observation: Wall stress versus diameter. J Vasc Surg 37:724–732. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Di Martino ES, Vorp DA (2003) Effect of variation in intraluminal thrombus constitutive properties on abdominal aortic aneurysm wall stress. Ann Biomed Eng 31:804–809. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Raghavan ML, Fillinger MF, Marra SP, Naegelein BP, Kennedy FE (2005) Automated Methodology for Determination of Stress Distribution in Human Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. J Biomech Eng 127:868–871. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Di Martino ES, Guadagni G, Fumero A, Ballerini G, Spirito R, Biglioli P, Redaelli A (2001) Fluid-structure interaction within realistic three-dimensional models of the aneurysmatic aorta as a guidance to assess the risk of rupture of the aneurysm. Med Eng Phys 23:647–655. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Morbiducci U, Gallo D, Massai D, Consolo F, Ponzini R, Antiga L, Bignardi C, Deriu MA, Redaelli A (2010) Outflow conditions for image-based hemodynamic models of the carotid bifurcation: implications for indicators of abnormal flow. J Bomechanical Eng 132:91005. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gao F, Ohta O, Matsuzawa T (2008) Fluid-structure interaction in layered aortic arch aneurysm model: Assessing the combined influence of arch aneurysm and wall stiffness. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 31:32–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Scotti CM, Finol EA (2007) Compliant biomechanics of abdominal aortic aneurysms: A fluid-structure interaction study. Comput Struct 85:1097–1113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Frauenfelder T, Lotfey M, Boehm T, Wildermuth S (2006) Computational fluid dynamics: Hemodynamic changes in abdominal aortic aneurysm after stent-graft implantation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 29:613–623. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kao RH, Chen WL, Leu TS, Chen T, Kan CD (2014) Numerical Simulation of Blood Flow in Double-Barreled Cannon EVAR and its Clinical Validation. J Vasc Med Surg 2:160. Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yeow SL, Leo HL (2016)Hemodynamic Study of Flow Remodeling Stent Graft for the Treatment of Highly Angulated Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.Comput Math Methods Med 2016: 2016:3830123.
  44. 44.
    Sheidaei A, Hunley SCC, Zeinali-Davarani S, Raguin LG, Baek S (2011) Simulation of abdominal aortic aneurysm growth with updating hemodynamic loads using a realistic geometry. Med Eng Phys 33:80–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gur H, Ben, Brand M, Kósa G, Golan S (2017)Computational Fluid Dynamics of Blood Flow in the Abdominal Aorta Post “Chimney”Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (ChEVAR).In:Aortic Aneurysm.IntechOpen, pp 617–622Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Soudah E, Ng EYK, Loong TH, Bordone M, Pua U, Narayanan S (2013) CFD modelling of abdominal aortic aneurysm on hemodynamic loads using a realistic geometry with CT. Comput Math Methods Med 2013. Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Xenos M, Rambhia SH, Alemu Y, Einav S, Labropoulos N, Tassiopoulos A, Ricotta JJ, Bluestein D (2010) Patient-based abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk prediction with fluid structure interaction modeling. Ann Biomed Eng 38:3323–3337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Algabri YA, Rookkapan S, Chatpun S (2017) Three-dimensional finite volume modelling of blood flow in simulated angular neck abdominal aortic aneurysm. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 243:12003. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Finol EA, Keyhani K, Amon CH (2003) The Effect of Asymmetry in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Under Physiologically Realistic Pulsatile Flow Conditions. J Biomech Eng 125:207–217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Shek TLT, Tse LW, Nabovati A, Amon CH (2012) Computational Fluid Dynamics Evaluation of the Cross-Limb Stent Graft Configuration for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair. J Biomech Eng 134:121002. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Boyd AJ, Kuhn DCS, Lozowy RJ, Kulbisky GP (2016) Low wall shear stress predominates at sites of abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture. J Vasc Surg 63:1613–1619. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sinnott M, Cleary PW, Prakash M (2006)An investigation of pulsatile blood flow in a bifurcation artery using a grid-free method.In:Proc.Fifth International Conference on CFD in the Process Industries.Melbourne, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gounley J, Vardhan M, Randles A (2017)A Computational Framework to Assess the Influence of Changes in Vascular Geometry on Blood Flow.In:Proceedings of the Platform for Advanced Scientific Computing Conference on -PASC’17.Lugano, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Dolan JM, Kolega J, Meng H (2013) High wall shear stress and spatial gradients in vascular pathology: A review. Ann Biomed Eng 41:1411–1427. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Arzani A, Shadden SC (2015) Characterizations and Correlations of Wall Shear Stress in Aneurysmal Flow. J Biomech Eng 138:14503. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tan FPP, Borghi A, Mohiaddin RH, Wood NB, Thom S, Xu XY (2009) Analysis of flow patterns in a patient-specific thoracic aortic aneurysm model. Comput Struct 87:680–690. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Banks J, Bressloff NW (2007) Turbulence Modeling in Three-Dimensional Stenosed Arterial Bifurcations. J Biomech Eng 129:40–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ryval J, Straatman AG, Steinman DA (2004) Two-equation Turbulence Modeling of Pulsatile Flow in a Stenosed Tube. J Biomech Eng 126:625–635. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Deplano V, Knapp Y, Bailly L, Bertrand E (2014) Flow of a blood analogue fluid in a compliant abdominal aortic aneurysm model: Experimental modelling. J Biomech 47:1262–1269. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of MedicinePrince of Songkla UniversityHatyaiThailand
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Faculty of MedicinePrince of Songkla UniversityHatyaiThailand
  3. 3.Neuroscience Research CenterUniversity Magna GraeciaCatanzaroItaly
  4. 4.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations