A review on the reliability of hemodynamic modeling in intracranial aneurysms: why computational fluid dynamics alone cannot solve the equation.
3DRA = 3D rotational angiography
CFD = computational fluid dynamics
IA = intracranial aneurysm
computational fluid dynamics
imaging
intracranial aneurysms
segmentation
uncertainty quantification
Journal
Neurosurgical focus
ISSN: 1092-0684
Titre abrégé: Neurosurg Focus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100896471
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2019
01 07 2019
Historique:
received:
01
03
2019
accepted:
09
04
2019
entrez:
2
7
2019
pubmed:
2
7
2019
medline:
25
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Computational blood flow modeling in intracranial aneurysms (IAs) has enormous potential for the assessment of highly resolved hemodynamics and derived wall stresses. This results in an improved knowledge in important research fields, such as rupture risk assessment and treatment optimization. However, due to the requirement of assumptions and simplifications, its applicability in a clinical context remains limited.This review article focuses on the main aspects along the interdisciplinary modeling chain and highlights the circumstance that computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are embedded in a multiprocess workflow. These aspects include imaging-related steps, the setup of realistic hemodynamic simulations, and the analysis of multidimensional computational results. To condense the broad knowledge, specific recommendations are provided at the end of each subsection.Overall, various individual substudies exist in the literature that have evaluated relevant technical aspects. In this regard, the importance of precise vessel segmentations for the simulation outcome is emphasized. Furthermore, the accuracy of the computational model strongly depends on the specific research question. Additionally, standardization in the context of flow analysis is required to enable an objective comparison of research findings and to avoid confusion within the medical community. Finally, uncertainty quantification and validation studies should always accompany numerical investigations.In conclusion, this review aims for an improved awareness among physicians regarding potential sources of error in hemodynamic modeling for IAs. Although CFD is a powerful methodology, it cannot provide reliable information, if pre- and postsimulation steps are inaccurately carried out. From this, future studies can be critically evaluated and real benefits can be differentiated from results that have been acquired based on technically inaccurate procedures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31261119
doi: 10.3171/2019.4.FOCUS19181
pii: 2019.4.FOCUS19181
doi:
pii:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E15Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn