Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp 844–853

Importance of Accurate Geometry in the Study of the Total Cavopulmonary Connection: Computational Simulations and In Vitro Experiments

  • Keesuk Ryu
  • Timothy M. Healy
  • Ann E. Ensley
  • Shiva Sharma
  • Carol Lucas
  • Ajit P. Yoganathan
Article

Abstract

Previous in vitro studies have shown that total cavopulmonary connection (TCPC) models incorporating offset between the vena cavae are energetically more efficient than those without offsets. In this study, the impact of reducing simplifying assumptions, thereby producing more physiologic models, was investigated by computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and particle flow visualization experiments. Two models were constructed based on angiography measurements. The first model retained planar arrangement of all vessels involved in the TCPC but incorporated physiologic vessel diameters. The second model consisted of constant-diameter vessels with nonplanar vascular features. CFD and in vitro experiments were used to study flow patterns and energy losses within each model. Energy losses were determined using three methods: theoretical control volume, simplified control volume, and velocity gradient based dissipation. Results were compared to a simplified model control. Energy loss in the model with physiologically more accurate vessel diameters was 150% greater than the simplified model. The model with nonplanar features produced an asymmetric flow field with energy losses approximately 10% higher than simplified model losses. With the velocity gradient based dissipation technique, the map of energy dissipation was plotted revealing that most of the energy was dissipated near the pulmonary artery walls. © 2001 Biomedical Engineering Society.

PAC01: 8719Uv, 8710+e, 8780-y

TCPC Total cavopulmonary connection Single ventricle physiology CFD Computational fluid dynamics Energy loss 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Bird, R., W. Stewart, and E. Lightfoot. Transport Phenomena. New York: Wiley, 1960.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Currie, I. G. Fundamental Mechanics of Fluids. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Leval, M. R., P. Kilner., M. Gewillig., and C. Bull. Total cavopulmonary connection: A logical alternative to atriopulmonary connection for complex Fontan operations. Experimental studies and early clinical experience. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.96.:682–695., 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Leval, M. R., G. Dubini., F. Migliavacca., H. Jalali., G. Camporini., A. Redington., and R. Pietrabissa. Use of computational fluid dynamics in the design of surgical procedures: Application to the study of competitive flows in cavopulmonary connections. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.111.:502–513., 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dubini, G., M. de Leval., R. Pietrabissa., F. Montevecchi., and R. Fumero. A numerical fluid mechanical study of repaired congenital heart defects: Application to the total cavopulmonary connection. J. Biomech.29.:111–121., 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ensley, A., P. Lynch., G. Chatzimavroudis., C. Lucas., S. Sharma., and A. Yoganathan. Toward designing the optimal total cavopulmonary connection: An in vitro. study. Ann. Thorac. Surg.68.:1384–1390., 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ensley, A., A. Ramuzat., T. Healy., G. Chatzimavroudis., C. Lucas., S. Sharma., R. Pettigrew., and A. Yoganathan. Fluid mechanic assessment of the total cavopulmonary connection using magnetic resonance phase velocity mapping and digital particle image velocimetry. Ann. Biomed. Eng.28.:1172–1183., 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fontan, F., and E. Baudet. Surgical repair of tricuspid atresia. Thorax.26.:240–248., 1971.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gerdes, A., J. Kunze., G. Pfister., and H. Sievers. Addition of a small curvature reduces power losses across total cavopulmonary connections. Ann. Thorac. Surg.67.:1760–1764., 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Healy, T., C. Lucas., and A. Yoganathan. Noninvasive fluid dynamic power loss assessments for total cavopulmonary connections using the viscous dissipation function: A feasibility study. J. Biomech. Eng.123.:317–324., 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Migliavacca, F., M. de Leval., G. Dubini., R. Pietrabissa., and R. Fumero. Computational fluid dynamic simulations of cavopulmonary connections with an extracardiac lateral conduit. Med. Eng. Phys.21.:187–193., 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Migliavacca, F., P. Kilner., G. Pennati., G. Dubini., R. Pietrabissa., R. Fumero., and M. de Leval. Computational fluid dynamic and magnetic resonance analyses of flow distribution between the lungs after total cavopulmonary connection. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.46.:393–399., 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Migliavacca, F., M. de Leval., G. Dubini., and R. Pietrabissa. A computational pulsatile model of the bidirectional cavopulmonary anastomosis: The influence of pulmonary forward flow. J. Biomech. Eng.118.:520–528., 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sharma, S., S. Goudy., P. Walker., S. Panchal., A. Ensley., K. Kanter., V. Tam., D. Fyfe., and A. Yoganathan. In vitro. flow experiments for determination of optimal geometry of total cavopulmonary connection for surgical repair of children with functional single ventricle. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.27.:1264–1269., 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sheu, T. W. H., S. F. Tsai., W. S. Hwang., and T. M. Chang. A finite element study of the blood flow in the total cavopulmonary connection. Comput. Fluids.28.:19–39., 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shoemaker, D. P., C. W. Garland, and J. W. Nibler. Experiments in Physical Chemistry. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keesuk Ryu
    • 1
  • Timothy M. Healy
    • 1
  • Ann E. Ensley
    • 1
  • Shiva Sharma
    • 2
  • Carol Lucas
    • 3
  • Ajit P. Yoganathan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Tech and Emory UniversityAtlanta
  2. 2.Children's Heart CenterEmory University School of MedicineAtlanta
  3. 3.Biomedical Engineering DepartmentUniversity of North CarolinaChapel Hill

Personalised recommendations