Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31419563›Full record

ReviewActa biomaterialia2019

Biomechanics of aortic wall failure with a focus on dissection and aneurysm: A review.

Selda Sherifova, Gerhard A Holzapfel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta biomaterialia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Selda SherifovaInstitute of Biomechanics, Graz University of Technology, Stremayrgasse 16/2, 8010 Graz, Austria.
Gerhard A HolzapfelInstitute of Biomechanics, Graz University of Technology, Stremayrgasse 16/2, 8010 Graz, Austria; Department of Structural Engineering, Norwegian Institute of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway. Electronic address: holzapfel@tugraz.at.

Funding

Mathematical modeling and computer simulation of aortic dissectionR01HL117063 · NHLBI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI GRIFFITH, BOYCE EUGENE · 2013 to 2017
$2.3M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL117063
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aortic dissections and aortic aneurysms are fatal events characterized by structural changes to the aortic wall. The maximum diameter criterion, typically used for aneurysm rupture risk estimations, has been challenged by more sophisticated biomechanically motivated models in the past. Although these models are very helpful for the clinicians in decision-making, they do not attempt to capture material failure. Following a short overview of the microstructure of the aorta, we analyze the failure mechanisms involved in the dissection and rupture by considering also traumatic rupture. We continue with a literature review of experimental studies relevant to quantify tissue strength. More specifically, we summarize more extensively uniaxial tensile, bulge inflation and peeling tests, and we also specify trouser, direct tension and in-plane shear tests. Finally we analyze biomechanically motivated models to predict rupture risk. Based on the findings of the reviewed studies and the rather large variations in tissue strength, we propose that an appropriate material failure criterion for aortic tissues should also reflect the microstructure in order to be effective. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Aortic dissections and aortic aneurysms are fatal events characterized by structural changes to the aortic wall. Despite the advances in medical, biomedical and biomechanical research, the mortality rates of aneurysms and dissections remain high. The present review article summarizes experimental studies that quantify the aortic wall strength and it discusses biomechanically motivated models to predict rupture risk. We identified contradictory observations and a large variation within and between data sets, which may be due to biological variations, different sample sizes, differences in experimental protocols, etc. Based on the findings of the reviewed literature and the rather large variations in tissue strength, it is proposed that an appropriate criterion for aortic failure should also reflect the microstructure.

Indexed as

Aorta, AbdominalAortic DissectionAortic RuptureBiomechanical PhenomenaCollagenComputer SimulationDisease ProgressionElasticityHumansModels, CardiovascularRisk AssessmentStress, MechanicalTensile StrengthCollagenAortic aneurysmAortic dissectionAortic failureAortic microstructureBulge inflation testPeeling testRupture riskTissue strengthUniaxial tensile test

Identifiers

PMID31419563
PMCPMC6851434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.