What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to investigate how wall distensibility affects local hemodynamics at the carotid bifurcation using fluid-structure interaction simulations.

July 23, 2026Biomechanics and Modeling in MechanobiologyOpen Access

Fluid-structure interaction simulations show only ~4% difference in low wall shear stress versus rigid-wall models.

Q: What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Other. Population: Healthy carotid bifurcation (n=10). Intervention: Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) simulations vs. Rigid-wall computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. Primary outcome: Median difference in surface area exposed to low time-averaged wall shear stress (TAWSS) (4.1% median difference).

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

Do two-way-coupled fluid-structure interaction (FSI) simulations yield significantly different hemodynamic parameters compared to rigid-wall computational fluid-dynamics (CFD) simulations in normal carotid bifurcations?

Population

10 carotid bifurcations with ostensibly normal lumen geometries

Comparison

Two-way-coupled fluid-structure interaction… vs Computational fluid-dynamics simulations…

Design

Preclinical

Key result

Fluid-structure interaction simulations incorporating wall distensibility showed only small differences compared to rigid-wall models, with a 4.1% median difference in surface area exposed to low time-averaged wall shear stress.

Authors

SZSara Zambon VMValentina Mazzi KCKarol Calò

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Rigid-wall CFD overestimates WSS, vorticity, and shear strain by up to 43% in stenosed carotids; leaves open whether FSI improves patient-specific risk assessment.

Key Points

This research aims to investigate how wall distensibility affects local hemodynamics at the carotid bifurcation using fluid-structure interaction simulations.
Conducted two-way-coupled fluid-structure interaction simulations on 10 carotid bifurcations.
Assumed anisotropic wall mechanical properties with a fiber-reinforced hyperelastic material model.
Employed three-element Windkessel models to impose realistic pressure conditions.
Observed maximum cross-sectional area changes were generally less than 21%.
Median differences in surface areas showed 4.1% low time-averaged wall shear stress exposure, 1.4% high oscillatory shear index, and 2.3% topological shear variation.
FSI simulations revealed small-to-moderate differences from CFD simulations, suggesting rigid models adequately capture key hemodynamic features.

Structured PICO

Population

10 ostensibly healthy human carotid bifurcations from individuals aged 36 to 80 years were analyzed to compare rigid-wall computational fluid dynamics with fully coupled fluid-structure interaction simulations.

Intervention

Two-way-coupled fluid-structure interaction (FSI) simulations

Comparator

Computational fluid-dynamics (CFD) simulations assuming rigid arterial walls

Outcome

Differences in wall shear stress (WSS) and intravascular flow patterns (TAWSS, OSI, TSVI)surrogate

Main Result

Effect estimate: 4.1% median difference

CFD simulations assuming rigid arterial walls are generally sufficient to capture clinically relevant hemodynamic features in normal carotid bifurcations, though FSI offers benefits for structural computations.

Limitations

Windkessel parameters were tuned using rigid-wall simulations and not recalibrated for FSI, resulting in differences in flow repartition.
Material parameters were not subject-specific but selected from literature.
Wall thickness was assumed constant throughout the entire geometry for each subject.
The prestress approach provides only the initial stress state without an associated deformation.
CE-MRA acquisitions may result in vessel edge blurring and lumen area underestimation in regions of low velocities or small lumen size.

Cite This Study

Zambon et al. (2026) studied Healthy carotid bifurcation (n=10). Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) simulations vs. Rigid-wall computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations was evaluated on Median difference in surface area exposed to low time-averaged wall shear stress (TAWSS) (4.1% median difference). Fluid-structure interaction simulations incorporating wall distensibility showed only small differences compared to rigid-wall models, with a 4.1% median difference in surface area exposed to low time-averaged wall shear stress.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a61af56faa9903c5116a306 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-026-02103-4

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

July 23, 2026Biomechanics and Modeling in MechanobiologyOpen Access

Fluid-structure interaction simulations show only ~4% difference in low wall shear stress versus rigid-wall models.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

Population

10 carotid bifurcations with ostensibly normal lumen geometries

Comparison

Two-way-coupled fluid-structure interaction… vs Computational fluid-dynamics simulations…

Design

Preclinical

Key result

Authors

SZSara Zambon VMValentina Mazzi KCKarol Calò

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Rigid-wall CFD overestimates WSS, vorticity, and shear strain by up to 43% in stenosed carotids; leaves open whether FSI improves patient-specific risk assessment.

Key Points

This research aims to investigate how wall distensibility affects local hemodynamics at the carotid bifurcation using fluid-structure interaction simulations.
Conducted two-way-coupled fluid-structure interaction simulations on 10 carotid bifurcations.
Assumed anisotropic wall mechanical properties with a fiber-reinforced hyperelastic material model.
Employed three-element Windkessel models to impose realistic pressure conditions.
Observed maximum cross-sectional area changes were generally less than 21%.
Median differences in surface areas showed 4.1% low time-averaged wall shear stress exposure, 1.4% high oscillatory shear index, and 2.3% topological shear variation.
FSI simulations revealed small-to-moderate differences from CFD simulations, suggesting rigid models adequately capture key hemodynamic features.

Structured PICO

Population

Intervention

Two-way-coupled fluid-structure interaction (FSI) simulations

Comparator

Computational fluid-dynamics (CFD) simulations assuming rigid arterial walls

Outcome

Differences in wall shear stress (WSS) and intravascular flow patterns (TAWSS, OSI, TSVI)surrogate

Main Result

Effect estimate: 4.1% median difference

Limitations

Windkessel parameters were tuned using rigid-wall simulations and not recalibrated for FSI, resulting in differences in flow repartition.
Material parameters were not subject-specific but selected from literature.
Wall thickness was assumed constant throughout the entire geometry for each subject.
The prestress approach provides only the initial stress state without an associated deformation.
CE-MRA acquisitions may result in vessel edge blurring and lumen area underestimation in regions of low velocities or small lumen size.

Cite This Study

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a61af56faa9903c5116a306 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-026-02103-4

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark