ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Numerical Models Can Assist Choice of an Aortic Phantom for In Vitro Testing.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanics of Hollow Organs: Experimental Testing and Computational Modeling.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Biomechanics Assist Measurement, Modeling, Engineering Applications, and Clinical Decision Making in Medicine.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Distensibility of Deformable Aortic Replicas Assessed by an Integrated In-Vitro and In-Silico Approach.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: The realization of appropriate aortic replicas for in vitro experiments requires a suitable choice of both the material and geometry. The matching between the grade of details of the geometry and the mechanical response of the materials is an open issue that deserves attention. (2) Methods: To explore this issue, we performed a series of Fluid-Structure Interaction simulations, which compared the dynamics of three aortic models. Specifically, we reproduced a patient-specific geometry with a wall of biological tissue or silicone, and a parametric geometry based on in vivo data made in silicone. The biological tissue and the silicone were modeled with a fiber-oriented anisotropic and isotropic hyperelastic model, respectively. (3) Results: Clearly, both the aorta's geometry and its constitutive material contribute to the determination of the aortic arch deformation; specifically, the parametric aorta exhibits a strain field similar to the patient-specific model with biological tissue. On the contrary, the local geometry affects the flow velocity distribution quite a lot, although it plays a minor role in the helicity along the arch. (4) Conclusions: The use of a patient-specific prototype in silicone does not a priori ensure a satisfactory reproducibility of the real aorta dynamics. Furthermore, the present simulations suggest that the realization of a simplified replica with the same compliance of the real aorta is able to mimic the overall behavior of the vessel.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.