ArticlePloS one2025
Numerical study on the biomechanics mechanism of Type II endoleak after EVAR for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Targeting the sac or the feeders? An anatomy-driven review of contemporary embolization strategies of type II endoleaks.CVIR endovascular · 2026Review
- Abdominal Stent Graft Numerical Models to Virtually Simulate Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Scoping Review.EJVES vascular forum · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Type I endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm using component quantification of energy loss: a preliminary feasibility study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Type II endoleak, a common complication following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR), remains a leading cause of re-intervention, yet its biomechanical mechanisms are not fully understood. This study employed an idealized model of the aneurysmal sac, Inferior Mesenteric Artery (IMA), and Lumbar Arteries (LAs) to explore endoleak mechanisms using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and Fluid-structure Interaction (FSI) simulations. The results demonstrated that pressure differences between the sac and branch arteries drive Type II endoleak, with the IMA often serving as the primary inlet. Under the influence of Type II endoleak, flow disturbances near the IMA and LAs suggest potential challenges in thrombus formation. Comparative analysis between CFD and FSI showed that CFD overestimated peak flow velocity in the IMA and underestimated sac pressure, while also displaying a temporal lag in velocity and pressure curve throughout the cardiac cycle. These findings indicate that CFD is suitable for rapid assessments where precision is less critical, whereas FSI is more appropriate for detailed mechanistic studies. This work clarifies the biomechanics of Type II endoleak and underscores the importance of selecting appropriate numerical methods in clinical and research contexts.
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.