Experimental Techniques

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 1187–1201 | Cite as

A Technique for Comparing Wall Pressure Distributions in Steady Flow Through Rigid Versus Flexible Patient-based Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Phantoms

  • R. A. Peattie
  • E. Golden
  • R. S. Nomoto
  • C. M. Margossian
  • F. Q. Pancheri
  • E. S. Edgar
  • M. D. Iafrati
  • A. Luis Dorfmann
Article
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) represent permanent, localized dilations of the abdominal aorta. Here, we describe a procedure for noninvasively measuring the flow-induced wall pressure distribution in both effectively rigid, thick-wall and flexible, thin-wall phantoms under perfusion conditions dynamically simulating the in vivo abdominal aorta. Both phantoms accurately replicated the shape of patient AAAs including the renal and iliac arteries, and the flexible phantoms reflected patient tissue mechanical properties as well. As an example of their use, wall pressure distributions measured in rigid and flexible phantoms derived from one representative patient under flow conditions emulating the aorta at rest are presented. In both phantoms, there was a net pressure decrease from the upstream end of the bulge to the downstream end. However, there was a five times larger variation of wall pressure magnitude along the bulge region of the flexible phantom than along the rigid phantom, 6–7 mmHg versus more than 30 mmHg. In addition, in the rigid phantom, pressure signal fluctuations were of the same order of magnitude as the pressure transducer inherent noise level. In the flexible phantom, they were approximately 10 times the noise level in the absence of flow, suggesting that flow in the flexible phantom was unstable even at Reynolds number 500.

Keywords

Aortic Aneurysm Model Phantom Flow Wall Pressure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ashton HA, Buxton MJ, Day NE et al (2002) The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (Mass) into the Effect of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening on Mortality in Men: A Randomized Control Trial. Lancet 360:1531–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lederle FA, Johnson GR, Wilson SE et al (2002) Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study, I. Rupture Rate of Large Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in Patients Refusing or Unfit for Elective Repair. Journal of the American Medical Association 287:2968–2972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karkos C, Mukhodpadhyay U, Papakostas I, Ghosh J, Thomson G, Hughes R (2000) Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: The Role of Clinical Examination and Opportunistic Detection. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 19:299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davis M, Harris M, Earnshaw JJ (2013) Implementation of the National Health Service Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Program in England. Journal of Vascular Surgery 57:1440–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lederle FA (2009) The Natural History of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Acta Chirurgica Belgica 109:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Center for Health Statistics, URL www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm [accessed October 2013]
  7. 7.
    Nevitt MP, Ballard DJ, Hallett JW (1989) Prognosis of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Population Based Study. The New England Journal of Medicine 321:1009–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Darling, C.R., Carlene, R.M., Brewester, D.C., and Ottinger, L.W., “Autopsy Study of Unoperated Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms, the Case for Early Resection,” Circulation 56(3 supplement II): 61–65 (1977).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finlayson SRG, Birkmeyer JD, Fillinger MF, Cronenwett JL (1999) Should Endovascular Surgery Lower the Threshold for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms? Journal of Vascular Surgery 29:973–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Appelberg M (1994) Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis and Management. Modern Medicine of Australia 37:54–63Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nicholls SC, Gardner JB, Meissner MH, Johansen KH (1998) Rupture in Small Abdominal Aneurysms. Journal of Vascular Surgery 28:884–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Humphrey JD, Taylor CA (2008) Intracranial and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Similarities, Differences, and Need for a New Class of Computational Models. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 10:221–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fillinger M (2006) The Long-Term Relationship of Wall Stress to The Natural History of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms (Finite Element Analysis and Other Methods). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1085:22–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vorp DA (2007) Biomechanics of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Journal of Biomechanics 40:1887–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raghavan ML, Vorp DA (2000) Toward a Biomechanical Tool to Evaluate Rupture Potential of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Identification of a Finite Strain Constitutive Model and Evaluation of Its Applicability. Journal of Biomechanics 33:475–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vande Geest JP, Schmidt DE, Sacks MS, Vorp DA (2008) The Effects of Anisotropy on the Stress Analyses of Patient-Specific Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 36:921–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li Z, Kleinstreuer C (2006) Effects of Blood Flow and Vessel Geometry on Wall Stress and Rupture Risk of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms. Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology 30:283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li ZY, U-King-Im J, Tang TY, Soh E, See TC, Gillard JH (2008) Impact of Calcification and Intraluminal Thrombus on the Computed Wall Stresses of an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Journal of Vascular Surgery 47:928–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bluestein D, Dumont K, De Beule M et al (2009) Intraluminal Thrombus and Risk of Rupture in Patient Specific Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms—FSI Modeling. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 12:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scotti CM, Jimenez J, Muluk SC, Finol EA (2008) Wall Stress and Flow Dynamics in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Finite Element Analysis vs. Fluid–Structure Interaction. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 11:301–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dorfmann AL, Wilson C, Edgar ES, Peattie RA (2010) Evaluating Patient-Specific Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Wall Stress Based on Flow-Induced Loading. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology 9:127–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Doyle BJ, Killion J, Callanan A (2012) Use of the Photoelastic Method and Finite Element Analysis in the Assessment of Wall Strain in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Models. Journal of Biomechanics 45:1759–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Corbett TJ, Doyle BJ, Callanan A, Walsh MT, McGloughlin TM (2010) Engineering Silicone Rubbers for in Vitro Studies: Creating AAA Models and ILT Analogues With Physiological Properties. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 132:011008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Doyle BJ, Cloonan AJ, Walsh MT, Vorp DA, McGloughlin TM (2010) Identification of Rupture Locations in Patient-Specific Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using Experimental and Computational Techniques. Journal of Biomechanics 43:1408–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pancheri FQ, Dorfmann L (2014) Strain Controlled Biaxial Stretch: An Experimental Characterization of Natural Rubber. Rubber Chemistry and Technology 87:120–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Margossian, CM., Development and Analysis of Synthetic Composite Materials Emulating Patient AAA Wall Material Properties, MS Thesis, Tufts University, Medford, MA (2012).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Edgar, ES., Computational and Experimental Investigation of Steady Flow Fields, Turbulence and Hemodynamic Wall Stresses in Patient-Specific Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Models. MS Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR (2008).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fung Y-C (1981) Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living Tissue. Springer-Verlag, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Park JB, Santos JM, Hargreaves BA et al (2005) Rapid Measurement of Renal Artery Blood Flow With Ungated Spiral Phase-Contrast MRI. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 21:590–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sommer G, Corrigan G, Fredrickson J et al (1998) Renal Blood Flow: Measurement in Vivo With Rapid Spiral MR Imaging. Radiology 208:729–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Khodarahmi I, Shakeri M, Kotys-Traughber M, Fischer S, Sharp MK, Amini AA (2014) In Vitro Validation of Flow Measurement With Phase Contrast MRI at 3 Tesla Using Stereoscopic Particle Image Velocimetry and Stereoscopic Particle Image Velocimetry-Based Computational Fluid Dynamics. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 39:1477–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bluth EI, Murphey SM, Hollier LH, Sullivan MA (1990) Color Flow Doppler in the Evaluation of Aortic Aneurysms. International Angiology 9:8–10Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Asbury CL, Ruberti JW, Bluth EI, Peattie RA (1995) Experimental Investigation of Steady Flow in Rigid Models of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 23:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bluestein D, Niu L, Schoephoerster RT, Dewanjee MK (1996) Steady Flow in an Aneurysm Model: Correlation Between Fluid Dynamics and Blood Platelet Deposition. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 118:280–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Feller KJ, Atkinson SJ, Peattie RA (2001) Quantification of Flow Stability in Patient-Based Models of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms. ASME-BED 50:753–754Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Peattie RA, Riehle TJ, Bluth EI (2004) Pulsatile Flow in Fusiform Models of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Flow Fields, Velocity Patterns and Flow-Induced Wall Stresses. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 126:438–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Khanafer KM, Bull JL, Upchurch GR Jr, Berguer R (2007) Turbulence Significantly Increases Pressure and Fluid Shear Stress in an Aortic Aneurysm Model Under Resting and Exercise Flow Conditions. Annals of Vascular Surgery 21:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Anton R, Chen C-Y, Hung M-Y, Finol EA, Pekkan K (2015) Experimental and Computational Investigation of the Patient-Specific Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Pressure Field. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 18:981–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Swillens A, Lanoye L, De Backer J et al (2008) Effect of an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm on Wave Reflection in the Aorta. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 55:1602–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Deplano V, Knapp Y, Bailly L, Bertrand E (2014) Flow of a Blood Analogue Fluid in a Compliant Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Model: Experimental Modelling. Journal of Biomechanics 47:1262–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    O’Brien T, Morris L, O’Donnell M, Walsh M, McGloughlin T (2005) Injection-Moulded Models of Major and Minor Arteries: The Variability of Model Wall Thickness Owing to Casting Technique. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers: Part H 219:381–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Doyle BJ, Morris LG, Callanan A, Kelly P, Vorp DA, McGloughlin TM (2008) 3D Reconstruction and Manufacture of Real Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: From CT Scan to Silicone Model. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 130:034501CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. A. Peattie
    • 1
  • E. Golden
    • 2
  • R. S. Nomoto
    • 1
  • C. M. Margossian
    • 2
  • F. Q. Pancheri
    • 3
  • E. S. Edgar
    • 4
  • M. D. Iafrati
    • 1
  • A. Luis Dorfmann
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryTufts Medical CenterBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringTufts UniversityMedfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringTufts UniversityMedfordUSA
  4. 4.Abt AssociatesCambridgeUSA
  5. 5.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringTufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations