kth.sePublications KTH
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Biomechanical Rupture Risk Assessment
KTH, School of Engineering Sciences (SCI), Engineering Mechanics, Vehicle Engineering and Solid Mechanics, Solid Mechanics.
2016 (English)In: AORTA, ISSN 2325-4637, Vol. 4, no 2, p. 42-60Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture is a local event in the aneurysm wall that naturally demands tools to assess the risk for local wall rupture. Consequently, global parameters like the maximum diameter and its expansion over time can only give very rough risk indications; therefore, they frequently fail to predict individual risk for AAA rupture. In contrast, the Biomechanical Rupture Risk Assessment (BRRA) method investigates the wall's risk for local rupture by quantitatively integrating many known AAA rupture risk factors like female sex, large relative expansion, intraluminal thrombus-related wall weakening, and high blood pressure. The BRRA method is almost 20 years old and has progressed considerably in recent years, it can now potentially enrich the diameter indication for AAA repair. The present paper reviews the current state of the BRRA method by summarizing its key underlying concepts (i.e., geometry modeling, biomechanical simulation, and result interpretation). Specifically, the validity of the underlying model assumptions is critically disused in relation to the intended simulation objective (i.e., a clinical AAA rupture risk assessment). Next, reported clinical BRRA validation studies are summarized, and their clinical relevance is reviewed. The BRRA method is a generic, biomechanics-based approach that provides several interfaces to incorporate information from different research disciplines. As an example, the final section of this review suggests integrating growth aspects to (potentially) further improve BRRA sensitivity and specificity. Despite the fact that no prospective validation studies are reported, a significant and still growing body of validation evidence suggests integrating the BRRA method into the clinical decision-making process (i.e., enriching diameter-based decision-making in AAA patient treatment). 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. , 2016. Vol. 4, no 2, p. 42-60
Keywords [en]
Abdominal aortic aneurysm, Biomechanics, Peak wall stress, Rupture risk, Wall stress
National Category
Surgery Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disease
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-314002DOI: 10.12945/j.aorta.2015.15.030Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85127319413OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-314002DiVA, id: diva2:1669107
Note

QC 20220614

Available from: 2022-06-14 Created: 2022-06-14 Last updated: 2025-02-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Gasser, T. Christian

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Gasser, T. Christian
By organisation
Solid Mechanics
SurgeryCardiology and Cardiovascular Disease

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 66 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf