Advertisement

Maximum Principal AAA Wall Stress Is Proportional to Wall Thickness

  • K. MillerEmail author
  • G. R. Joldes
  • J. Qian
  • A. P. Patel
  • M. S. Jung
  • A. C. R. Tavner
  • A. Wittek
Conference paper
  • 354 Downloads

Abstract

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a permanent and irreversible dilation of the lower region of the aorta. It is an asymptomatic condition which if left untreated can expand to the point of rupture. Rupture of an artery will occur when the local wall stress exceeds the local wall strength. Therefore, estimation of a patient’s AAA wall stress non-invasively, quickly, and reliably is desirable. One solution to this problem is to use recently-published methods to compute AAA wall stress, using geometry from CT scans, and median arterial pressure as the load. Our method is embedded in the software platform BioPARR—Biomechanics based Prediction of Aneurysm Rupture Risk, freely available from http://bioparr.mech.uwa.edu.au/. Experience with over 50 patient-specific stress analyses, as well as common sense, suggests that the AAA wall stress is critically dependent on the local AAA wall thickness. This thickness is currently very difficult to measure in the clinical environment. Therefore, we conducted a simulation study to elucidate the relationship between the wall thickness and the maximum principal stress. The results of the analysis of three cases presented here unequivocally demonstrate that this relationship is approximately linear, bringing us closer to being able to compute predictive stress envelopes for every patient.

Keywords

Abdominal aortic aneurysm Patient-specific modelling Finite element method Stress Wall Thickness 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The financial support of the National Health and Medical Research Council (Grant No. APP1063986) is gratefully acknowledged. We wish to acknowledge the Raine Medical Research Foundation for funding G. R. Joldes through a Raine Priming Grant, and the Department of Health, Western Australia, for funding G. R. Joldes through a Merit Award. The AAA data has been obtained from the MA3RS study [22].

References

  1. 1.
    Bosch JL et al (2002) Abdominal aortic aneurysms: cost-effectiveness of elective endovascular and open surgical repair. Radiology 225(2):337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Norman PE et al (2004) Population based randomised controlled trial on impact of screening on mortality from abdominal aortic aneurysm. BMJ 329(7477):1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh K et al (2001) Prevalence of and risk factors for abdominal aortic aneurysms in a population-based study: the Tromsø study. Am J Epidemiol 154(3):236–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bengtsson H, Bergqvist D (1993) Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: a population-based study. J Vasc Surg 18(1):74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kantonen I et al (1999) Mortality in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 17(3):208–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans SM, Adam DJ, Bradbury AW (2000) The influence of gender on outcome after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg 32(2):258–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Darling RC et al (1977) Autopsy study of unoperated abdominal aortic aneurysms. The case for early resection. Circulation 56:161–164Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenhalgh RM (2004) Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 364(9437):843–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McGloughlin TM, Doyle BJ (2010) New approaches to abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk assessment: engineering insights with clinical gain. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 30(9):1687–1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vande Geest JP et al (2006) A biomechanics-based rupture potential index for abdominal aortic aneurysm risk assessment: demonstrative application. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1085:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gasser TC et al (2010) Biomechanical rupture risk assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: model complexity versus predictability of finite element simulations. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 40(2):176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gasser TC et al (2014) A novel strategy to translate the biomechanical rupture risk of abdominal aortic aneurysms to their equivalent diameter risk: method and retrospective validation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 47(3):288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joldes GR et al (2016) A simple, effective and clinically applicable method to compute abdominal aortic aneurysm wall stress. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 58:139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zelaya JE et al (2014) Improving the efficiency of abdominal aortic aneurysm wall stress computations. PLoS One 9(7):e101353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raghavan M et al (2000) Wall stress distribution on three-dimensionally reconstructed models of human abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg 31:760–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doyle B, Callanan A, McGloughlin T (2007) A comparison of modelling techniques for computing wall stress in abdominal aortic aneurysms. Biomed Eng Online 6(1):38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li ZY et al (2010) Association between aneurysm shoulder stress and abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion: a longitudinal follow-up study. Circulation 122(18):1815–1822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fung YC (1991) What are the residual stresses doing in our blood vesssels? Ann Biomed Eng 19:237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miller K, Lu J (2013) On the prospect of patient-specific biomechanics without patient-specific properties of tissues. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 27:154–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Calvetti D, Kaipio JP, Somersalo E (2014) Inverse problems in the Bayesian framework. Inverse Prob 30(11):110301MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhu C et al (2016) Isotropic 3D black blood MRI of abdominal aortic aneurysm wall and intraluminal thrombus. Magn Reson Imaging 34(1):18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McBride OMB et al (2015) MRI using ultrasmall superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide in patients under surveillance for abdominal aortic aneurysms to predict rupture or surgical repair: MRI for abdominal aortic aneurysms to predict rupture or surgery—the MA3RS study. Open Heart 2(1):e000190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fedorov A et al (2012) 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging 30(9):1323–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhu L et al (2014) An effective interactive medical image segmentation method using fast growcut. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer assisted intervention (MICCAI), interactive medical image computing workshop, Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Geuzaine C, Remacle J-F (2016) Gmsh - a three-dimensional finite element mesh generator with built-in pre- and post-processing facilities. http://gmsh.info/. 03 Mar 2016
  26. 26.
    Geuzaine C, Remacle J-F (2009) Gmsh: a three-dimensional finite element mesh generator with built-in pre- and post-processing facilities. Int J Numer Methods Eng 79(11):1309–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    ABAQUS (2009) ABAQUS theory manual version 6.9. Dassault Systèmes Simulia, Providence, RIGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wittek A, Hawkins T, Miller K (2009) On the unimportance of constitutive models in computing brain deformation for image-guided surgery. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 8(1):77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Taylor Z, Miller K (2005) Using numerical approximation as an intermediate step in analytical derivations: some observations from biomechanics. J Biomech 38(12):2497–2502CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Miller
    • 1
    Email author
  • G. R. Joldes
    • 2
    • 3
  • J. Qian
    • 1
  • A. P. Patel
    • 1
  • M. S. Jung
    • 1
  • A. C. R. Tavner
    • 1
  • A. Wittek
    • 1
  1. 1.Intelligent Systems for Medicine LaboratoryThe University of Western Australia, CrawleyPerthAustralia
  2. 2.School of Engineering and Information TechnologyMurdoch UniversityMurdochAustralia
  3. 3.Intelligent Systems for Medicine Laboratory, School of Mechanical and Chemical EngineeringThe University of Western Australia, CrawleyPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations