ArticleCardiovascular engineering and technology2025
The Influence of Material Properties and Wall Thickness on Predicted Wall Stress in Ascending Aortic Aneurysms: A Finite Element Study.
Article in Cardiovascular engineering and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physics-Informed Neural Networks Meet Multimodal Large Language Models: Biomechanical Simulation in Aortic Aneurysm.Cyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- A combined 4D flow MR imaging and fluid-structure interaction analysis of ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFinite element analysis (FEA) has been used to predict wall stress in ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm (ATAA) in order to evaluate risk of dissection or rupture. Patient-specific FEA requires detailed information on ATAA geometry, loading conditions, material properties, and wall thickness. Unfortunately, measuring aortic wall thickness and mechanical properties non-invasively poses a significant challenge, necessitating the use of non-patient-specific data in most FE simulations. This study aimed to assess the impact of employing non-patient-specific material properties and wall thickness on ATAA wall stress predictions.
methodsFE simulations were performed on 13 ATAA geometries reconstructed from computed tomography angiography (CTA) images. Patient-specific material properties and wall thicknesses were made available from a previous study where uniaxial tensile testing was performed on tissue samples obtained from the same patients. The ATAA wall models were discretised with hexahedral elements and prestressed. For each ATAA model, FE simulations were conducted using patient-specific material properties and wall thicknesses, and group-mean values derived from all tissue samples included in the same experimental study. Literature-based material property and wall thickness were also obtained from the literature and applied to 4 representative cases. Additional FE simulations were performed on these 4 cases by employing group-mean and literature-based wall thicknesses.
resultsFE simulations using the group-mean material property produced peak wall stresses comparable to those obtained using patient-specific material properties, with a mean deviation of 7.8%. Peak wall stresses differed by 20.8% and 18.7% in patients with exceptionally stiff or compliant walls, respectively. Comparison to results using literature-based material properties revealed larger discrepancies, ranging from 5.4% to 28.0% (mean 20.1%). Bland-Altman analysis showed significant discrepancies in areas of high wall stress, where wall stress obtained using patient-specific and literature-based properties differed by up to 674 kPa, compared to 227 kPa between patient-specific and group-mean properties. Regarding wall thickness, using the literature-based value resulted in even larger discrepancies in predicted peak stress, ranging from 24.2% to 30.0% (mean 27.3%). Again, using the group-mean wall thickness offered better predictions with a difference less than 5% in three out of four cases. While peak wall stresses were most affected by the choice of mechanical properties or wall thickness, the overall distribution of wall stress hardly changed.
conclusionsOur study demonstrated the importance of incorporating patient-specific material properties and wall thickness in FEA for risk prediction of aortic dissection or rupture. Our future efforts will focus on developing inverse methods for non-invasive determination of patient-specific wall material parameters and wall thickness.
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.