Quantitative and Qualitative Comparison of 4D-DSA with 3D-DSA Using Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations in Cerebral Aneurysms

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Wong SC,
   3. Nawawi O,
   4. Ramli N, et al

   . Benefits of 3D rotational DSA compared with 2D-DSA in the evaluation of intracranial aneurysm. Acad Radiol 2012;19:701–07 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2012.02.012 pmid:22578227

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Geers AJ,
   3. Larrabide I,
   4. Radaelli AG, et al

   . Patient-specific computational hemodynamics of intracranial aneurysms from 3D rotational angiography and CT angiography: an in vivo reproducibility study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:581–86 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2306 pmid:21183614

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   2. Hochmuth A,
   3. Spetzger U,
   4. Schumacher M

   . Comparison of three-dimensional rotational angiography with digital subtraction angiography in the assessment of ruptured cerebral aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:1199–205 pmid:12169480

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   2. Davis B,
   3. Royalty K,
   4. Kowarschik M, et al

   . 4D digital subtraction angiography: implementation and demonstration of feasibility. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1914–21 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3529 pmid:23620072

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   2. Sandoval-Garcia C,
   3. Yang P,
   4. Schubert T, et al

   . Comparison of the diagnostic utility of 4D-DSA with conventional 2D- and 3D-DSA in the diagnosis of cerebrovascular abnormalities. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:729–34 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5137 pmid:28279986

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Sandoval-Garcia C,
   3. Royalty K,
   4. Aagaard-Kienitz B, et al

   . A comparison of 4D-DSA with 2D and 3D-DSA in the analysis of normal vascular structures in a canine model. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:1959–63 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4359 pmid:26089314

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   2. Lescher S,
   3. Gehrisch S,
   4. Klein S, et al

   . Time-resolved 3D rotational angiography: display of detailed neurovascular anatomy in patients with intracranial vascular malformations. J Neurointerv Surg 2017;9:887–94 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012462 pmid:27492375

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Lang S,
   3. Gölitz P,
   4. Struffert T, et al

   . 4D-DSA for dynamic visualization of cerebral vasculature: a single-center experience in 26 cases. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:1169–76 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5161 pmid:28408632

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   2. Kallmes DF

   . Point: CFD–computational fluid dynamics or confounding factor dissemination. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:395–96 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2993 pmid:22268081

   FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    2. Cebral JR,
    3. Mut F,
    4. Weir J, et al

    . Association of hemodynamic characteristics and cerebral aneurysm rupture. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:264–70 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2274 pmid:21051508

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    2. Zeng Z,
    3. Kallmes DF,
    4. Durka MJ, et al

    . Hemodynamics and anatomy of elastase-induced rabbit aneurysm models: similarity to human cerebral aneurysms? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:595–601 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2324 pmid:21273353

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    2. Steinman DA,
    3. Milner JS,
    4. Norley CJ, et al

    . Image-based computational simulation of flow dynamics in a giant intracranial aneurysm. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:559–66 pmid:12695182

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Ren Y,
    3. Chen GZ,
    4. Liu Z, et al

    . Reproducibility of image-based computational models of intracranial aneurysm: a comparison between 3D rotational angiography, CT angiography and MR angiography. Biomed Eng Online 2016;15:50 doi:10.1186/s12938-016-0163-4 pmid:27150439

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Cebral JR,
    3. Castro MA,
    4. Burgess JE, et al

    . Characterization of cerebral aneurysms for assessing risk of rupture by using patient-specific computational hemodynamics models. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:2550–59 pmid:16286400

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    2. Szikora I,
    3. Paal G,
    4. Ugron A, et al

    . Impact of aneurysmal geometry on intraaneurysmal flow: a computerized flow simulation study. Neuroradiology 2008;50:411–21 doi:10.1007/s00234-007-0350-x pmid:18180916

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Cebral JR,
    3. Castro MA,
    4. Appanaboyina S, et al

    . Efficient pipeline for image-based patient-specific analysis of cerebral aneurysm hemodynamics: technique and sensitivity. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2005;24:457–67 doi:10.1109/TMI.2005.844159 pmid:15822804

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    2. Kono K,
    3. Tomura N,
    4. Yoshimura R, et al

    . Changes in wall shear stress magnitude after aneurysm rupture. Acta Neurochir 2013;155:1559–63 doi:10.1007/s00701-013-1773-2 pmid:23715949

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Boegel M,
    3. Gehrisch S,
    4. Redel T, et al

    . Patient-individualized boundary conditions for CFD simulations using time-resolved 3D angiography. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2016;11:1061–69 doi:10.1007/s11548-016-1367-6 pmid:27017497

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Shojima M,
    3. Oshima M,
    4. Takagi K, et al

    . Magnitude and role of wall shear stress on cerebral aneurysm: computational fluid dynamic study of 20 middle cerebral artery aneurysms. Stroke 2004;35:2500–05 doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000144648.89172.0f pmid:15514200

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    2. Cebral JR,
    3. Pergolizzi R Jr.,
    4. Putman CM

    . Computational fluid dynamics modeling of intracranial aneurysms: qualitative comparison with cerebral angiography. Acad Radiol 2007;14:804–13 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2007.03.008 pmid:17574131

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science