Tension-based abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk assessment improves its accuracy and reduces the time of analysis.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 BIOPHYSICS
Radek Vitásek, Luboš Kubíček, David Schwarz, Robert Staffa, Stanislav Polzer
{"title":"Tension-based abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk assessment improves its accuracy and reduces the time of analysis.","authors":"Radek Vitásek, Luboš Kubíček, David Schwarz, Robert Staffa, Stanislav Polzer","doi":"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The biomechanical rupture risk assessment (BRRA) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) has higher sensitivity than maximal diameter criterion (D<sub>SEX</sub>) but its estimation is time-consuming and relies on an uncertain estimation of wall thickness. The aim of this study is to test tension-based criterion in the BRRA of AAA which removes the necessity of wall thickness measurement and should be faster. For that, we retrospectively analyzed 99 patients with intact AAA (25 females). Nineteen of them experienced a rupture later. BRRA was performed with wall tension PRRI<sub>T</sub> as a primary criterion. The ability of criterion to separate intact and ruptured AAAs at 1,3,6,9 and 12 months was estimated. Next, the receiver operating characteristics and the percentage of true negative cases for a different time to an outcome were estimated. Finally, the computational time was recorded. The results were compared to stress-based criterion PRRI and D<sub>SEX</sub> which served as a reference. All three criterions were able to discriminate between intact and ruptured AAAs up to 9 months (p < 0.05) while none of them could do for a 12 month prediction. PRRI<sub>T</sub> exhibited a significantly higher percentage of true negatives for 12 and 9 month predictions (45 % and 20 % respectively) and similar to other criteria for other prediction times. The mean computational time for estimating PRRI<sub>T</sub> was 19 h per patient compared to 67 h for PRRI. The tension- based BRRA of AAA leads to better outcomes for a 9 and 12 month prediction while the computational time drops by more than 70 % compared to PRRI.</p>","PeriodicalId":15168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomechanics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112328","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The biomechanical rupture risk assessment (BRRA) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) has higher sensitivity than maximal diameter criterion (DSEX) but its estimation is time-consuming and relies on an uncertain estimation of wall thickness. The aim of this study is to test tension-based criterion in the BRRA of AAA which removes the necessity of wall thickness measurement and should be faster. For that, we retrospectively analyzed 99 patients with intact AAA (25 females). Nineteen of them experienced a rupture later. BRRA was performed with wall tension PRRIT as a primary criterion. The ability of criterion to separate intact and ruptured AAAs at 1,3,6,9 and 12 months was estimated. Next, the receiver operating characteristics and the percentage of true negative cases for a different time to an outcome were estimated. Finally, the computational time was recorded. The results were compared to stress-based criterion PRRI and DSEX which served as a reference. All three criterions were able to discriminate between intact and ruptured AAAs up to 9 months (p < 0.05) while none of them could do for a 12 month prediction. PRRIT exhibited a significantly higher percentage of true negatives for 12 and 9 month predictions (45 % and 20 % respectively) and similar to other criteria for other prediction times. The mean computational time for estimating PRRIT was 19 h per patient compared to 67 h for PRRI. The tension- based BRRA of AAA leads to better outcomes for a 9 and 12 month prediction while the computational time drops by more than 70 % compared to PRRI.

基于张力的腹主动脉瘤破裂风险评估提高了准确性,缩短了分析时间。
腹主动脉瘤(AAA)的生物力学破裂风险评估(BRRA)比最大直径标准(DSEX)具有更高的灵敏度,但其估算耗时且依赖于不确定的壁厚估算。本研究的目的是在 AAA 的 BRRA 中测试基于张力的标准,该标准无需测量壁厚,而且速度更快。为此,我们回顾性分析了 99 名完整 AAA 患者(25 名女性)。其中 19 人后来发生了破裂。BRRA 以管壁张力 PRRIT 为主要标准。我们估算了该标准在 1、3、6、9 和 12 个月时区分完整 AAA 和破裂 AAA 的能力。接着,估算了接收者操作特征和不同时间结果的真阴性病例百分比。最后,记录了计算时间。结果与作为参考的基于压力的标准 PRRI 和 DSEX 进行了比较。这三种标准都能在 9 个月内区分完好和破裂的 AAA(p T 在 12 个月和 9 个月的预测中显示出明显较高的真阴性比例(分别为 45% 和 20%),而在其他预测时间中与其他标准相似。每位患者估算 PRRIT 的平均计算时间为 19 小时,而估算 PRRI 的平均计算时间为 67 小时。与 PRRI 相比,基于张力的 AAA BRRA 在 9 个月和 12 个月的预测结果更好,而计算时间则减少了 70% 以上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of biomechanics
Journal of biomechanics 生物-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
345
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Biomechanics publishes reports of original and substantial findings using the principles of mechanics to explore biological problems. Analytical, as well as experimental papers may be submitted, and the journal accepts original articles, surveys and perspective articles (usually by Editorial invitation only), book reviews and letters to the Editor. The criteria for acceptance of manuscripts include excellence, novelty, significance, clarity, conciseness and interest to the readership. Papers published in the journal may cover a wide range of topics in biomechanics, including, but not limited to: -Fundamental Topics - Biomechanics of the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems, mechanics of hard and soft tissues, biofluid mechanics, mechanics of prostheses and implant-tissue interfaces, mechanics of cells. -Cardiovascular and Respiratory Biomechanics - Mechanics of blood-flow, air-flow, mechanics of the soft tissues, flow-tissue or flow-prosthesis interactions. -Cell Biomechanics - Biomechanic analyses of cells, membranes and sub-cellular structures; the relationship of the mechanical environment to cell and tissue response. -Dental Biomechanics - Design and analysis of dental tissues and prostheses, mechanics of chewing. -Functional Tissue Engineering - The role of biomechanical factors in engineered tissue replacements and regenerative medicine. -Injury Biomechanics - Mechanics of impact and trauma, dynamics of man-machine interaction. -Molecular Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of biomolecules. -Orthopedic Biomechanics - Mechanics of fracture and fracture fixation, mechanics of implants and implant fixation, mechanics of bones and joints, wear of natural and artificial joints. -Rehabilitation Biomechanics - Analyses of gait, mechanics of prosthetics and orthotics. -Sports Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of sports performance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信