4.5 Article

Comparing Pre- and Post-operative Fontan Hemodynamic Simulations: Implications for the Reliability of Surgical Planning

期刊

ANNALS OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
卷 40, 期 12, 页码 2639-2651

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-012-0614-4

关键词

Computational fluid dynamics; Total cavopulmonary connection; Fontan procedure; Patient-specific modeling; Virtual surgery

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [HL67622, HL098252]
  2. American Heart Association [10PRE3720002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Virtual modeling of cardiothoracic surgery is a new paradigm that allows for systematic exploration of various operative strategies and uses engineering principles to predict the optimal patient-specific plan. This study investigates the predictive accuracy of such methods for the surgical palliation of single ventricle heart defects. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based surgical planning was used to model the Fontan procedure for four patients prior to surgery. The objective for each was to identify the operative strategy that best distributed hepatic blood flow to the pulmonary arteries. Post-operative magnetic resonance data were acquired to compare (via CFD) the post-operative hemodynamics with predictions. Despite variations in physiologic boundary conditions (e.g., cardiac output, venous flows) and the exact geometry of the surgical baffle, sufficient agreement was observed with respect to hepatic flow distribution (90% confidence interval-14 +/- A 4.3% difference). There was also good agreement of flow-normalized energetic efficiency predictions (19 +/- A 4.8% error). The hemodynamic outcomes of prospective patient-specific surgical planning of the Fontan procedure are described for the first time with good quantitative comparisons between preoperatively predicted and postoperative simulations. These results demonstrate that surgical planning can be a useful tool for single ventricle cardiothoracic surgery with the ability to deliver significant clinical impact.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据