Identification of geometric and mechanical factors predictive of bird-beak configuration in thoracic endovascular aortic repair using computational models of stent graft deployment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: Formation of a bird-beak configuration in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been shown to be influenced by various factors. However, the main cause of bird-beak formation remains poorly understood. The hypothesis has been that the geometric and mechanical properties of both the aorta and the stent graft contribute to the formation and extent of a bird-beak configuration. The goal of the present study was to use parameter-based computational simulations of TEVAR to predict for bird-beak formation and identify its most significant contributing factors. Methods: In the present study, we considered five parameters for the computational simulations of TEVAR, including aortic curvature, aortic arch angle, age as a surrogate for thoracic aortic tissue properties, TEVAR landing zone, and stent graft oversizing. Using an experimental design approach, computational models for 160 TEVAR scenarios were developed by varying the values of the simulation parameters within clinically relevant ranges. The bird-beak length and angle were used as metrics to evaluate the simulation results. Statistical analysis of the simulation data using a random forest model was conducted to identify significant parameters and interactions. Results: The mean ± standard deviation of the bird-beak length and angle across 160 simulations were 4.32 ± 4.87 mm and 9.16° ± 12.21°, respectively. The largest mean bird-beak length and angle were found in the most distal location in zone 0 (10.04 mm) and zone 2 (21.48°), respectively. An inverse correlation was found between the aortic arch angle and the bird-beak length and angle. In ∼75% of the scenarios, increased stent graft oversizing either fully resolved the presence of the bird-beak configuration or had reduced its size. In the remaining 25%, oversizing minimally changed the bird-beak length and enlarged the bird-beak angle, which mainly occurred in cases with a smaller aortic arch angle and landing zones near the arch apex. This was justified by the mechanism of stent graft bending in the arch angulation. The aortic curvature and tissue properties were shown to be statistically insignificant in relation to bird-beak formation. Conclusions: Significant parameters predictive of a bird-beak configuration in TEVAR were identified, and the trends in which each parameter influenced the bird-beak size were determined. The findings from the present study can inform the surgical planning and device selection process with the goal of minimizing bird-beak formation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».