On the necessity to include arterial pre-stress in patient-specific simulations of minimally invasive procedures

2Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) are minimally invasive procedures for treating aortic valves and diseases. Finite element simulations have proven to be valuable tools in predicting device-related complications. In the literature, the inclusion of aortic pre-stress has not been widely investigated. It plays a crucial role in determining the biomechanical response of the vessel and the device–tissue interaction. This study aims at demonstrating how and when to include the aortic pre-stress in patient-specific TAVI and TEVAR simulations. A percutaneous aortic valve and a stent-graft were implanted in aortic models reconstructed from patient-specific CT scans. Two scenarios for each patient were compared, i.e., including and neglecting the wall pre-stress. The neglection of pre-stress underestimates the contact pressure of 48% and 55%, the aorta stresses of 162% and 157%, the aorta strains of 77% and 21% for TAVI and TEVAR models, respectively. The stent stresses are higher than 48% with the pre-stressed aorta in TAVI simulations; while, similar results are obtained in TEVAR cases. The distance between the device and the aorta is similar with and without pre-stress. The inclusion of the aortic wall pre-stress has the capability to give a better representation of the biomechanical behavior of the arterial tissues and the implanted device. It is suggested to include this effect in patient-specific simulations replicating the procedures.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ramella, A., Lissoni, V., Bridio, S., Rodriguez Matas, J. F., Trimarchi, S., Grossi, B., … Luraghi, G. (2024). On the necessity to include arterial pre-stress in patient-specific simulations of minimally invasive procedures. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, 23(2), 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-023-01789-0

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free