Fikunwa O. Kolawole , Johan Bondesson , Brant W. Ullery , Christopher P. Cheng
{"title":"B型主动脉夹层真实腔腔螺旋形态的中心线量化:释放螺旋度作为几何生物标志物的潜力","authors":"Fikunwa O. Kolawole , Johan Bondesson , Brant W. Ullery , Christopher P. Cheng","doi":"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112933","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The helical morphology of Type B aortic dissections (TBAD) represents a potentially important geometric biomarker that may influence dissection progression. While three-dimensional surface-based quantification methods provide accurate TBAD helicity assessment, their clinical adoption remains limited by significant processing time. We developed and validated a clinically practical centerline-based helicity quantification method using routine imaging software (TeraRecon) against an extensively validated surface-based method (SimVascular). In 87 TBAD patients, we semi-automatically extracted aortic, true lumen, and branch vessel centerlines from CT imaging. Helical parameters, including true lumen helical angle and peak helical twist, were computed relative to a standardized anatomical reference, enabling classification of patients into four distinct helicity categories: left-chiral, right-chiral, non-helical, and mixed-chiral patterns. The centerline method demonstrated 92% classification accuracy with excellent agreement with surface-based measurements (Cohen’s <span><math><mrow><mi>κ</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>88</mn></mrow></math></span>, <span><math><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo><</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>001</mn></mrow></math></span>). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed a median difference of <span><math><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><msup><mrow><mn>4</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>∘</mo></mrow></msup></mrow></math></span> (<span><math><mrow><mi>z</mi><mo>=</mo><mo>−</mo><mn>1</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>08</mn></mrow></math></span>, <span><math><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>28</mn></mrow></math></span>), indicating no statistically significant systematic bias between methods. This centerline approach we have developed provides clinically feasible TBAD helicity classification while maintaining excellent agreement with the gold-standard surface-based method. This technique can integrate seamlessly with existing clinical workflows, enabling practical assessment of TBAD helical morphology for enhanced risk stratification and personalized treatment planning.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomechanics","volume":"192 ","pages":"Article 112933"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Centerline-based quantification of true Lumen helical Morphology in Type B aortic dissection: Unlocking the potential of helicity as a geometric biomarker\",\"authors\":\"Fikunwa O. Kolawole , Johan Bondesson , Brant W. Ullery , Christopher P. Cheng\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112933\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The helical morphology of Type B aortic dissections (TBAD) represents a potentially important geometric biomarker that may influence dissection progression. While three-dimensional surface-based quantification methods provide accurate TBAD helicity assessment, their clinical adoption remains limited by significant processing time. We developed and validated a clinically practical centerline-based helicity quantification method using routine imaging software (TeraRecon) against an extensively validated surface-based method (SimVascular). In 87 TBAD patients, we semi-automatically extracted aortic, true lumen, and branch vessel centerlines from CT imaging. Helical parameters, including true lumen helical angle and peak helical twist, were computed relative to a standardized anatomical reference, enabling classification of patients into four distinct helicity categories: left-chiral, right-chiral, non-helical, and mixed-chiral patterns. The centerline method demonstrated 92% classification accuracy with excellent agreement with surface-based measurements (Cohen’s <span><math><mrow><mi>κ</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>88</mn></mrow></math></span>, <span><math><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo><</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>001</mn></mrow></math></span>). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed a median difference of <span><math><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><msup><mrow><mn>4</mn></mrow><mrow><mo>∘</mo></mrow></msup></mrow></math></span> (<span><math><mrow><mi>z</mi><mo>=</mo><mo>−</mo><mn>1</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>08</mn></mrow></math></span>, <span><math><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>28</mn></mrow></math></span>), indicating no statistically significant systematic bias between methods. This centerline approach we have developed provides clinically feasible TBAD helicity classification while maintaining excellent agreement with the gold-standard surface-based method. This technique can integrate seamlessly with existing clinical workflows, enabling practical assessment of TBAD helical morphology for enhanced risk stratification and personalized treatment planning.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"volume\":\"192 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112933\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929025004452\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929025004452","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Centerline-based quantification of true Lumen helical Morphology in Type B aortic dissection: Unlocking the potential of helicity as a geometric biomarker
The helical morphology of Type B aortic dissections (TBAD) represents a potentially important geometric biomarker that may influence dissection progression. While three-dimensional surface-based quantification methods provide accurate TBAD helicity assessment, their clinical adoption remains limited by significant processing time. We developed and validated a clinically practical centerline-based helicity quantification method using routine imaging software (TeraRecon) against an extensively validated surface-based method (SimVascular). In 87 TBAD patients, we semi-automatically extracted aortic, true lumen, and branch vessel centerlines from CT imaging. Helical parameters, including true lumen helical angle and peak helical twist, were computed relative to a standardized anatomical reference, enabling classification of patients into four distinct helicity categories: left-chiral, right-chiral, non-helical, and mixed-chiral patterns. The centerline method demonstrated 92% classification accuracy with excellent agreement with surface-based measurements (Cohen’s , ). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed a median difference of (, ), indicating no statistically significant systematic bias between methods. This centerline approach we have developed provides clinically feasible TBAD helicity classification while maintaining excellent agreement with the gold-standard surface-based method. This technique can integrate seamlessly with existing clinical workflows, enabling practical assessment of TBAD helical morphology for enhanced risk stratification and personalized treatment planning.
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.