4.5 Article

Patient-Specific 3D Simulation of Cyclic CSF Flow at the Craniocervical Region

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 9, Pages 1756-1762

Publisher

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3047

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Flow simulations in patient-specific models of the subarachnoid space characterize CSF flow in more detail than MR flow imaging. We extended previous simulation studies by including cyclic CSF flow and patient-specific models in multiple patients with Chiari I. We compared simulation results with MR flow measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Volumetric high resolution image sets acquired in 7 patients with Chiari I, 3 patients who had previous craniovertebral decompression, and 3 controls were segmented and converted to mathematical models of the subarachnoid space. CSF flow velocities and pressures were calculated with high spatial and temporal resolution during simulated oscillatory flow in each model with the Navier-Stokes equations. Pressures, velocities, and bidirectional flow were compared in the groups (with Student t test). Peak velocities in the simulations were compared with peak velocities measured in vivo with PCMR. RESULTS: Flow visualization for patients and volunteers demonstrated nonuniform reversing patterns resembling those observed with PCMR. Velocities in the 13 subjects were greater between C2 and C5 than in the foramen magnum. Chiari patients had significantly greater peak systolic and diastolic velocities, synchronous bidirectional flow, and pressure gradients than controls. Peak velocities measured in PCMR correlated significantly (P = .003; regression analysis) despite differences between them. CONCLUSIONS: In simulations of CSF, patients with Chiari I had significantly greater peak systolic and diastolic velocities, synchronous bidirectional flow, and pressure gradients than controls.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available