CFD-Based Postprocessing of CT-MRI Data to Determine the Mechanics of Rupture in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

  • Tejas Canchi
  • Eddie Y. K. NgEmail author
  • Ashish Saxena
  • Sriram Narayanan


Multimodality imaging techniques are becoming the norm in medical imaging. Using a combination of techniques, clinicians can make a more informed diagnosis. In the case of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), a combination of CT and MRI imaging techniques is used to diagnose and subsequently decide on surgical intervention. Clinicians use a maximum transverse diameter metric of 55 mm to recommend surgery in AAA patients based on the images obtained. However, the clinical metric by itself is not sufficient to prognose rupture. Hence, a mechanics-based approach can be employed to extract biomechanical parameters such as wall shear stress and principal stresses to predict rupture well in advance. With the application of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), these parameters can be estimated from a fluid–structure interaction (FSI)-based analysis of the abnormal aorta. Patient-specific geometry and boundary conditions such as velocity, pressure, and material properties are used in these methods. In this chapter, an FSI-based approach to study the rupture mechanics of AAA is discussed in detail. Subsequently, the need of studying AAA in Asian population is outlined and a case study is presented on a patient-specific model to illustrate the mechanics-based approach in predicting rupture in AAA. Results from the case study reveal that the maximum transverse diameter is not the sole determinant of AAA rupture risk. Hence, mechanics-based method supplements the image-based techniques for better patient management.


Abdominal aortic aneurysm Multimodal imaging CFD Rupture risk assessment Patient-specific 


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization, Cardiovascular Diseases (2015) [Online]. Available: Accessed 19 July 2017
  2. 2.
    S. Mendis, P. Puska, S. Mendis, P. Puska, B. Norrving (eds.), Global Atlas on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Control (World Health Organization, Geneva, 2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D.A. Vorp, Biomechanics of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J. Biomech. 40(9), 1887–1902 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Mandal, Cardiovascular Disease Diagnosis (2012). [Online]. Available: Accessed: 19 July 2017
  5. 5.
    J.A. Elefteriades, A. Sang, G. Kuzmik, M. Hornick, Guilt by association: paradigm for detecting a silent killer (thoracic aortic aneurysm). Open Hear. 2(1), e000169 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E.M. Isselbacher, Thoracic and abdominal aortic aneurysms. Circulation 111(6), 816–828 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Erbel, H. Eggebrecht, Aortic dimensions and the risk of dissection. Heart 92(1), 137–142 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Shimizu, R.N. Mitchell, P. Libby, Inflammation and cellular immune responses in abdominal aortic aneurysms. Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology 26(5), 987–994 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.E. Starr, V. Halpern, Abdominal aortic aneurysms in women. J. Vasc. Surg. 57(4 Suppl), 3S–10S (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    L.C. Brown, J.T. Powell, Risk factors for aneurysm rupture in patients kept under ultrasound surveillance. UK Small Aneurysm Trial Participants. Ann. Surg. 230(3), 287–289 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Cronenwett etal., Actuarial analysis of variables associated with rupture of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Surgery 98, 472–783 (1985)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Livesay, G. Messner, W. Vaughn, Milestones in treatment of aortic aneurysm milestones in the treatment of aortic aneurysm. Texas Hear. Inst. J. 32(2), 130–134 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S.S. Raut, S. Chandra, J. Shum, E.A. Finol, The role of geometric and biomechanical factors in abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk assessment. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 41(7), 1459–1477 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Earle Estes, Abdominal aortic aneurysm: a study of one hundred and two cases. Circulation II, 258–264 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    E.L. Chaikof etal., The care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm: The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines. J. Vasc. Surg. 50(4 Suppl), S2–S49 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    F.A. Lederle, D.B. Nelson, A.M. Josoeph, Smokers' relative risk for arotic aneurysm compared with other smoking-related diseases: a systematic review. J. Vasc. Surg. 38, 329–334 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.T. Powell, Mortality results for randomised controlled trial of early elective surgery or ultrasonographic surveillance for small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Lancet 352, 1649–1655 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    R.C. Darling, C.R. Messina, D.C. Brewster, L.W. Ottinger, Autopsy study of unoperated abdominal aortic aneurysms. The case for early resection. Circulation 56, 161–164 (1977)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    X. Li, G. Zhao, J. Zhang, Z. Duan, S. Xin, Prevalence and trends of the abdominal aortic aneurysms epidemic in general population—a meta-analysis. PLoS One 8(12), 1–11 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    W. Guo, T. Zhang, Abdominal aortic aneurysm prevalence in China. Endovasc. Today. (February), 76–82 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    K. Adachi, T. Iwasawa, T. Ono, Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms during a basic medical checkup in residents of a Japanese rural community. Surg. Today 30(7), 594–599 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Ishikawa etal., The characteristics of screened patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. Int. Angiol. 20, 74–77 (2001)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    S.H. Oh etal., Routine screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm during clinical transthoracic echocardiography in a Korean population. Echocardiography 27(10), 1182–1187 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    M.K. Yii, Epidemiology of abdominal aortic aneurysm in an Asian population. ANZ J. Surg. 73(6), 393–395 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. Li, K. Lin, D. Shahmirzadi, FSI Simulations of Pulse Wave Propagation in Human Adbomianl Aortic Aneurysm: The Effects of sac geometry and stiffness. Biomedical Engineering and Computational Biology. 7, 25–36 (2016) doi:10.4137/BECB.S40094Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    B. Trachet etal., An animal-specific FSI model of the abdominal aorta in anesthetized mice. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 43(6), 1298–1309 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    D. Bianchi, E. Monaldo, A. Gizzi, M. Marino, S. Filippi, G. Vairo, A FSI computational framework for vascular physiopathology: a novel flow-tissue multiscale strategy. Med. Eng. Phys. 47, 25–37 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Lin, X. Han, Y. Bi, S. Ju, L. Gu, Fluid-structure interaction in abdominal aortic aneurysm: effect of modeling techniques. Biomed Res. Int. 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J.F. Rodríguez, C. Ruiz, M. Doblaré, G.A. Holzapfel, Mechanical stresses in abdominal aortic aneurysms: influence of diameter, asymmetry, and material anisotropy. J. Biomech. Eng. 130(2), 21023 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    T. Christian Gasser, An irreversible constitutive model for fibrous soft biological tissue: a 3-D microfiber approach with demonstrative application to abdominal aortic aneurysms. Acta Biomater. 7(6), 2457–2466 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. Tong, T. Cohnert, P. Regitnig, G.A. Holzapfel, Effects of age on the elastic properties of the intraluminal thrombus and the thrombus-covered wall in abdominal aortic aneurysms: Biaxial extension behaviour and material modelling. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 42(2), 207–219 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    J.F. Rodriguez, G. Martufi, M. Doblare, E.A. Finol, The effect of material model formulation in the stress analysis of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 37(11), 2218–2221 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    E.S. Di Martino etal., 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(9), 647–655 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    C.M. Scotti, J. Jimenez, S.C. Muluk, E.A. Finol, Wall stress and flow dynamics in abdominal aortic aneurysms: finite element analysis vs. fluid-structure interaction. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engin. 11(3), 301–322 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    C.M. Scotti, A.D. Shkolnik, S.C. Muluk, E.A. Finol, Fluid-structure interaction in abdominal aortic aneurysms: effects of asymmetry and wall thickness. Biomed. Eng. Online 4(1), 64 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Y. Papaharilaou, J.A. Ekaterinaris, E. Manousaki, A.N. Katsamouris, A decoupled fluid structure approach for estimating wall stress in abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Biomech. 40(2), 367–377 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    C. Figueroa, I. Vignon-Clementel, K. Jansen, T. Hughes, C. Taylor, in A New Formulation to Model Blood Flow and Vessel Motion in Large, Patient-Specific Models of the Cardiovascular System. Proceedings of the 2005 Summer Bioengineering Conference (2005), pp. 1402–1403Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Z. Li, C. Kleinstreuer, A comparison between different asymmetric abdominal aortic aneurysm morphologies employing computational fluid-structure interaction analysis. Eur. J. Mech. B. Fluids 26(5), 615–631 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    K.J. Mortele, J. McTavish, P.R. Ros, Current techniques of computed tomography: helical CT, multidetector CT, and 3D reconstruction. Clin. Liver Dis. 6(1), 29–52 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    S.W. Stavropoulos, S.R. Charagundla, Imaging techniques for detection and management of endoleaks after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Radiology 243(3), 641–655 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    R. Scott, The place of screening in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Scand. J. Surg. 97(2), 136–138 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    H. Hong, Y. Yang, B. Liu, W. Cai, Imaging of abdominal aortic aneurysm: the present and the future. Curr. Vasc. Pharmacol. 8(6), 808–819 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    P. Cignoni etal., in MeshLab: An Open-Source Mesh Processing Tool. Sixth Eurographics Ital. Chapter Conf. (2008), pp. 129–136Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    C.R. Ethier, C.A. Simmons, Introductory Biomechanics: From Cells to Organisms (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    T. Canchi etal., A review of computational methods to predict the risk of rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015, 1–12 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    S. Patankar, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow (Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Washington, DC, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    E. Soudah, E.Y.K. Ng, T.H. Loong, M. Bordone, U. Pua, S. Narayanan, CFD modelling of abdominal aortic aneurysm on hemodynamic loads using a realistic geometry with CT. Comput. Math. Methods Med. 2013, 472564 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    S. Pasta etal., Difference in hemodynamic and wall stress of ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve. J. Biomech. 46(10), 1729–1738 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    G. Giannakoulas etal., A computational model to predict aortic wall stresses in patients with systolic arterial hypertension. Med. Hypotheses 65(6), 1191–1195 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    A.J. Boyd, D.C.S. Kuhn, R.J. Lozowy, G.P. Kulbisky, Low wall shear stress predominates at sites of abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture. J. Vasc. Surg. 62(5), 1–7 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tejas Canchi
    • 1
  • Eddie Y. K. Ng
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ashish Saxena
    • 1
  • Sriram Narayanan
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Department of General SurgeryTan Tock Seng HospitalSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations