Computational Fluid Dynamics Using a Porous Media Setting Predicts Outcome after Flow-Diverter Treatment

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Becske T,
   2. Potts MB,
   3. Shapiro M, et al

   . Pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms: 3-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg 2017;127:81–88 doi:10.3171/2015.6.JNS15311 pmid:27739944

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Becske T,
   2. Brinjikji W,
   3. Potts MB, et al

   . Long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes following Pipeline embolization device treatment of complex internal carotid artery aneurysms: five-year results of the Pipeline for Uncoilable or Failed Aneurysms Trial. Neurosurgery 2017;80:40–48 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyw014 pmid:28362885

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Cruz JP,
   2. Chow M,
   3. O’Kelly C, et al

   . Delayed ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhage following flow diversion for the treatment of anterior circulation aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:603–08 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3065 pmid:22403783

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Rouchaud A,
   2. Brinjikji W,
   3. Lanzino G, et al

   . Delayed hemorrhagic complications after flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms: a literature overview. Neuroradiology 2016;58:171–77 doi:10.1007/s00234-015-1615-4 pmid:26553302

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Umeda Y,
   2. Ishida F,
   3. Tsuji M, et al

   . Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis using porous media modeling predicts angiographic occlusion status after coiling of unruptured cerebral aneurysms: preliminary study. Journal of Neuroendovascular Therapy 2015;9:69–77 doi:10.5797/jnet.or.2014-0035

   CrossRef
6. 6.↵
   1. Umeda Y,
   2. Ishida F,
   3. Tsuji M, et al

   . Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) using porous media modeling predicts recurrence after coiling of cerebral aneurysms. PLoS One 2017;12:e0190222 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190222 pmid:29284057

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Li Y,
   2. Zhang M,
   3. Verrelli DI, et al

   . Numerical simulation of aneurysmal haemodynamics with calibrated porous-medium models of flow-diverting stents. J Biomech 2018;80:88–94 doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.08.026 pmid:30190083

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. O'Kelly CJ,
   2. Krings T,
   3. Fiorella D, et al

   . A novel grading scale for the angiographic assessment of intracranial aneurysms treated using flow diverting stents. Interv Neuroradiol 2010;16:133–37 doi:10.1177/159101991001600204 pmid:20642887

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Murray CD

   . The physiological principle 1 of minimum work applied to the angle of branching of arteries. J Gen Physiol 1926;9:835–41 doi:10.1085/jgp.9.6.835 pmid:19872299

   FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    1. Ford MD,
    2. Alperin N,
    3. Lee SH, et al

    . Characterization of volumetric flow rate waveforms in the normal internal carotid and vertebral arteries. Physiol Meas 2005;26:477–88 doi:10.1088/0967-3334/26/4/013 pmid:15886442

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Akgiray Ö,
    2. Saatçı AM

    . A new look at filter backwash hydraulics. Water Science & Technology: Water Supply 2001;1:65–72 doi:10.2166/ws.2001.0022

    CrossRef
12. 12.↵
    1. Derdeyn CP,
    2. Chimowitz MI,
    3. Lynn MJ, et al

    ; Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis Trial Investigators. Aggressive medical treatment with or without stenting in high-risk patients with intracranial artery stenosis (SAMMPRIS): the final results of a randomised trial. Lancet 2014;383:333–41 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62038-3 pmid:24168957

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. Sugiyama S,
    2. Niizuma K,
    3. Sato K, et al

    . Blood flow into basilar tip aneurysms: a predictor for recanalization after coil embolization. Stroke 2016;47:2541–47 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.013555 pmid:27625377

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    1. Xiang J,
    2. Damiano RJ,
    3. Lin N, et al

    . High-fidelity virtual stenting: modeling of flow diverter deployment for hemodynamic characterization of complex intracranial aneurysms. J Neurosurg 2015;123:832–40 doi:10.3171/2014.11.JNS14497 pmid:26090829

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Chung B,
    2. Mut F,
    3. Kadirvel R, et al

    . Hemodynamic analysis of fast and slow aneurysm occlusions by flow diversion in rabbits. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:931–35 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011412 pmid:25332410

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    1. Corbett SC,
    2. Ajdari A,
    3. Coskun AU, et al

    . In vitro and computational thrombosis on artificial surfaces with shear stress. Artif Organs 2010;34:561–69 doi:10.1111/j.1525-1594.2009.00930.x pmid:20497159

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Mut F,
    2. Raschi M,
    3. Scrivano E, et al

    . Association between hemodynamic conditions and occlusion times after flow diversion in cerebral aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:286–90 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2013-011080 pmid:24696500

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    1. Jing L,
    2. Zhong J,
    3. Liu J, et al

    . Hemodynamic effect of flow diverter and coils in treatment of large and giant intracranial aneurysms. World Neurosurg 2016;89:199–207 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.01.079 pmid:26852712

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Tsuji M,
    2. Kishimoto T,
    3. Tomoyuki K, et al

    . Double porous media modeling in computational fluid dynamics for hemodynamics of stent-assisted coiling of intracranial aneurysms: A technical case report. Brain Hemorrhages 2020;1:85–88 doi:10.1016/j.hest.2020.01.004

    CrossRef
20. 20.↵
    1. Damiano RJ,
    2. Tutino VM,
    3. Paliwal N, et al

    . Compacting a single flow diverter versus overlapping flow diverters for intracranial aneurysms: a computational study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:603–10 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5062 pmid:28057633

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    1. Edelstein LC,
    2. Simon LM,
    3. Montoya RT, et al

    . Racial differences in human platelet PAR4 reactivity reflect expression of PCTP and miR-376c. Nat Med 2013;19:1609–16 doi:10.1038/nm.3385 pmid:24216752

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Xiang J,
    2. Tremmel M,
    3. Kolega J, et al

    . Newtonian viscosity model could overestimate wall shear stress in intracranial aneurysm domes and underestimate rupture risk. J Neurointerv Surg 2012;4:351–57 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2011-010089 pmid:21990529

    CrossRefPubMed