Alexander Fiedler, Marius Drysch, Sonja Verena Schmidt, Pia Weskamp, Felix Reinkemeier, Flemming Puscz, Alexander Sogorski, Marcus Lehnhardt, Christoph Wallner
{"title":"From Geometry to Flow Allocation: A Physics-Based Framework for Interpretable Microvascular Hemodynamics.","authors":"Alexander Fiedler, Marius Drysch, Sonja Verena Schmidt, Pia Weskamp, Felix Reinkemeier, Flemming Puscz, Alexander Sogorski, Marcus Lehnhardt, Christoph Wallner","doi":"10.3390/bioengineering13091091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Anastomotic angle and flow allocation change together in end-to-side junctions, complicating interpretation of angle-dependent wall shear. We used MITOS Flow Lab, a two-dimensional D2Q9 two-relaxation-time lattice-Boltzmann environment, to examine this coupling in steady, rigid-walled, Newtonian models at Re ≈ 91. Angles of 30-120° were compared under equal outlet pressures and at approximately matched branch-flow fractions of 0.25 and 0.21, achieved with angle-specific static outlet-pressure offsets. Under equal outlet pressures, the branch-flow fraction decreased from 0.356 to 0.151 across this angle range, while the minimum normalized signed recipient-floor shear increased from 0.140 to 0.450. Matching flow allocation substantially reduced angle-associated variation in this endpoint and in the sub-toe response, whereas sub-heel and sub-ostial responses remained angle dependent under the adjusted boundary conditions. This qualitative contrast persisted when the lumen resolution was increased from 32 to 64 nodes for the 0.25 target, although minimum-shear attenuation changed from approximately 83% to 74%. The 0.21 target was examined only on the production grid. These experiments demonstrate that the interpretation of angle-associated shear depends on the flow-allocation condition used for comparison. They do not identify a boundary-independent geometric effect or a causal mediation fraction. Absolute values and attenuation magnitudes remain sensitive to discretization and have not been independently validated. These controlled comparisons provide a framework for interpreting angle-associated shear together with achieved flow allocation and the specified outlet conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":8874,"journal":{"name":"Bioengineering","volume":"13 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13603989/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioengineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13091091","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Anastomotic angle and flow allocation change together in end-to-side junctions, complicating interpretation of angle-dependent wall shear. We used MITOS Flow Lab, a two-dimensional D2Q9 two-relaxation-time lattice-Boltzmann environment, to examine this coupling in steady, rigid-walled, Newtonian models at Re ≈ 91. Angles of 30-120° were compared under equal outlet pressures and at approximately matched branch-flow fractions of 0.25 and 0.21, achieved with angle-specific static outlet-pressure offsets. Under equal outlet pressures, the branch-flow fraction decreased from 0.356 to 0.151 across this angle range, while the minimum normalized signed recipient-floor shear increased from 0.140 to 0.450. Matching flow allocation substantially reduced angle-associated variation in this endpoint and in the sub-toe response, whereas sub-heel and sub-ostial responses remained angle dependent under the adjusted boundary conditions. This qualitative contrast persisted when the lumen resolution was increased from 32 to 64 nodes for the 0.25 target, although minimum-shear attenuation changed from approximately 83% to 74%. The 0.21 target was examined only on the production grid. These experiments demonstrate that the interpretation of angle-associated shear depends on the flow-allocation condition used for comparison. They do not identify a boundary-independent geometric effect or a causal mediation fraction. Absolute values and attenuation magnitudes remain sensitive to discretization and have not been independently validated. These controlled comparisons provide a framework for interpreting angle-associated shear together with achieved flow allocation and the specified outlet conditions.
期刊介绍:
Aims
Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of bioengineering. It publishes original research papers, comprehensive reviews, communications and case reports. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. All aspects of bioengineering are welcomed from theoretical concepts to education and applications. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. There are, in addition, four key features of this Journal:
● We are introducing a new concept in scientific and technical publications “The Translational Case Report in Bioengineering”. It is a descriptive explanatory analysis of a transformative or translational event. Understanding that the goal of bioengineering scholarship is to advance towards a transformative or clinical solution to an identified transformative/clinical need, the translational case report is used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles that may guide other similar transformative/translational undertakings.
● Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas will be particularly welcomed.
● Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.
● We also accept manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds.
Scope
● Bionics and biological cybernetics: implantology; bio–abio interfaces
● Bioelectronics: wearable electronics; implantable electronics; “more than Moore” electronics; bioelectronics devices
● Bioprocess and biosystems engineering and applications: bioprocess design; biocatalysis; bioseparation and bioreactors; bioinformatics; bioenergy; etc.
● Biomolecular, cellular and tissue engineering and applications: tissue engineering; chromosome engineering; embryo engineering; cellular, molecular and synthetic biology; metabolic engineering; bio-nanotechnology; micro/nano technologies; genetic engineering; transgenic technology
● Biomedical engineering and applications: biomechatronics; biomedical electronics; biomechanics; biomaterials; biomimetics; biomedical diagnostics; biomedical therapy; biomedical devices; sensors and circuits; biomedical imaging and medical information systems; implants and regenerative medicine; neurotechnology; clinical engineering; rehabilitation engineering
● Biochemical engineering and applications: metabolic pathway engineering; modeling and simulation
● Translational bioengineering