CorbettTJCallananAMorrisLG. A review of the in vivo and in vitro
biomechanical behavior and performance of postoperative abdominal aortic
aneurysms and implanted stent-grafts. J Endovasc
Ther.2008;15:468–484.
2.
DarlingRCMessinaCRBrewsterDC. Autopsy study of unoperated abdominal
aortic aneurysms. Circulation.1977; 56 (II
suppl):161–164.
3.
RautSSChandraSShumJ. The role of geometric and
biomechanical factors in abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk
assessment. Ann Biomed Eng.2013;41:1459–1477.
4.
McGloughlinTMDoyleBJ. New
approaches to abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk assessment: engineering
insights with clinical gain. Arterioscler Thromb
Vasc Biol.2010;30:1687–1694.
5.
FillingerMFRaghavanMLMarraSP. In vivo analysis of mechanical wall
stress and abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk. J
Vasc Surg.2002;36:589–597.
6.
GasserTCAuerMLabrutoF. Biomechanical rupture risk assessment
of abdominal aortic aneurysms: model complexity versus predictability of
finite element simulations. Eur J Vasc Endovasc
Surg.2010;40:176–185.
GasserTCNchimiASwedenborgJ. A novel strategy to translate the
biomechanical rupture risk of abdominal aortic aneurysms to their equivalent
diameter risk: method and retrospective validation.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg.2014;47:288–295.
9.
TeutelinkACancrinusEvan de HeuvelD. Preliminary intraobserver and
interobserver variability in wall stress and rupture risk assessment of
abdominal aortic aneurysms using a semiautomatic finite element
model. J Vasc Surg.2012;55:326–330.
10.
CaoPDe RangoPVerziniF. Comparison of surveillance versus
aortic endografting for small aneurysm repair (CAESAR): results from a
randomised trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg.2011;41:13–25.
11.
OurielK.
Randomized clinical trials of endovascular repair versus
surveillance for treatment of small abdominal aortic
aneurysms. J Endovasc Ther.2009;16(Suppl
I):I94–I105.
12.
PrasadAToLKGorrepatiML. Computational analysis of stresses
acting on inter-modular junctions in thoracic aortic
endografts. J Endovasc Ther.2011;18:559–568.
13.
FigueroaCATaylorCAYehV. Preliminary 3D computational analysis
of the relationship between aortic displacement force and direction of
endograft movement. J Vasc Surg.2010;51:1488–1497.
14.
MolonyDSKavanaghEGMadhavanP. A computational study of the
magnitude and direction of migration forces in patient-specific abdominal
aortic aneurysm stent-grafts. Eur J Vasc Endovasc
Surg.2010;40:332–339.
LiZKleinstreuerC.
Analysis of biomechanical factors affecting stent-graft
migration in an abdominal aortic aneurysm model. J
Biomech.2006;39:2264–2273.
17.
LiffmanKLawrence-BrownMMSemmensJB. Analytical modeling and numerical
simulation of forces in an endoluminal graft. J
Endovasc Ther.2001;8:358–371.
18.
FigueroaCATaylorCAChiouAJ. Magnitude and direction of pulsatile
displacement forces acting on thoracic aortic endografts.
J Endovasc Ther.2009;16:350–358.
19.
GeorgakarakosEXenakisAManopoulosC. Geometric factors affecting the
displacement forces in an aortic endograft with crossed limbs: a
computational study. J Endovasc Ther.2013;20:191–199.
20.
GeorgakarakosEXenakisAManopoulosC. Modeling and computational analysis
of the hemodynamic effects of crossing the limbs in an aortic endograft
(“ballerina” position). J Endovasc
Ther.2012;19:549–557.
21.
ShekTLTseLWNabovatiA. Computational fluid dynamics
evaluation of the cross-limb stent graft configuration for endovascular
aneurysm repair. J Biomech Eng.2012;134:121002.
22.
GeorgakarakosEXenakisAGeorgiadisGS. The hemodynamic impact of
misalignment of fenestrated endografts: a computational
study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg.2014;47:151–159.
23.
DemangetNDupreyABadelP. Finite element analysis of the
mechanical performances of 8 marketed aortic stent-grafts.
J Endovasc Ther.2013;20:523–535.
24.
GundertTJMarsdenALYangW. Optimization of cardiovascular stent
design using computational fluid dynamics. J Biomech
Eng.2012;134:011002.
25.
LaDisaJFOlsonLEGulerI. Stent design properties and
deployment ratio influence indexes of wall shear stress: a three-dimensional
computational fluid dynamics investigation within a normal
artery. J Appl Physiol.2004;97:424–430.
26.
KleinstreuerCLiZBascianoCA. Computational mechanics of nitinol
stent grafts. J Biomech.2008;41:2370–2378.
27.
KockSANygaardJVEldrupN. Mechanical stresses in carotid
plaques using MRI-based fluid-structure interaction models.
J Biomech.2008;41:1651–1658.
28.
KarmonikCBismuthJDaviesMG. A computational fluid dynamics study
pre- and post-stent graft placement in an acute type B aortic
dissection. Vasc Endovascular Surg.2011;45:157–164.
29.
XenosMRambhiaSHAlemuY. Patient-based abdominal aortic
aneurysm rupture risk prediction with fluid structure interaction
modeling. Ann Biomed Eng.2010;38:3323–3337.
30.
XenosMKarakitsosDLabropoulosN. Comparative study of flow in
right-sided and left-sided aortas: numerical simulations in patient-based
models. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed
Engin.2013 Aug 16. [Epub ahead of print].
31.
DoyleBJCallananAMcGloughlinTM. A
comparison of modelling techniques for computing wall stress in abdominal
aortic aneurysms. Biomed Eng Online.2007;6:38.
32.
ReepsCGeeMMaierA. The impact of model assumptions on
results of computational mechanics in abdominal aortic
aneurysm. J Vasc Surg.2010;51:679–688.
33.
GeorgiadisGSGeorgakarakosEIAntoniouGA. Clinical outcomes after crossed-limb
vs. conventional endograft configuration in endovascular AAA
repair. J Endovasc Ther.2013;20:853–862.
34.
van MarrewijkCJLeursLJVallabhaneniSR. Risk-adjusted outcome analysis of
endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in a large population: how do
stent-grafts compare?J Endovasc Ther.2005;12:417–429.
35.
BrownLCGreenhalghRMKwongGP. Secondary interventions and mortality
following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: device-specific results from
the UK EVAR trials. Eur J Vasc Endovasc
Surg.2007;34:281–290.
36.
AntoniouGAGeorgiadisGSGlanczL. Outcomes of endovascular aneurysm
repair with 2 different endograft systems with suprarenal fixation in
patients with hostile infrarenal aortic anatomy.
Vasc Endovascular Surg.2013;47:9–18.
37.
FrauenfelderTLotfeyMBoehmT. Computational fluid dynamics:
hemodynamic changes in abdominal aortic aneurysm after stent-graft
implantation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol.2006;29:613–623.
38.
ChiesaRRiambauVCoppiG; ADVANCE Investigational Study
Investigators. The Bolton Treovance abdominal
stent-graft: European clinical trial design. J
Cardiovasc Surg (Torino).2012;53:595–604.
39.
GeorgakarakosEIoannouCVGeorgiadisGS. Expanding current EVAR indications to
include small abdominal aortic aneurysms: a glimpse of the
future. Angiology.2011;62:500–503.
40.
LiffmanKSutaloIDLawrence-BrownMM. Movement and dislocation of modular
stent-grafts due to pulsatile flow and the pressure difference between the
stent-graft and the aneurysm sac. J Endovasc
Ther.2006;13:51–61.
41.
MelasNSaratzisASaratzisN. Aortic and iliac fixation of seven
endografts for abdominal-aortic aneurysm repair in an experimental model
using human cadaveric aortas. Eur J Vasc Endovasc
Surg.2010;40:429–435.
42.
BosmanWMvan der SteenhovenTJSuarezDR. The proximal fixation strength of
modern EVAR grafts in a short aneurysm neck. An in vitro
study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg.2010;39:187–192.
43.
BosWTTielliuIFSondakhAO. Hybrid endograft solution for complex
iliac anatomy: Zenith body and Excluder limbs.
Vascular.2010;18:136–140.
44.
SaraidaridisJTOsborneNHEliasonJL. Composite stent-grafts are not
associated with increased endoleak or reintervention rates after
endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc
Surg.2013;27:274–281.
45.
GeorgiadisGSTrellopoulosGAntoniouGA. Hybrid endografts combinations for
the treatment of endoleak in endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm
repair. Int J Artif Organs.2013;36:28–38.