Modeling of braided stents: Comparison of geometry reconstruction and contact strategies
Journal of Biomechanics, ISSN: 0021-9290, Vol: 107, Page: 109841
2020
- 25Citations
- 49Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations25
- Citation Indexes25
- 25
- CrossRef11
- Captures49
- Readers49
- 49
Article Description
Braided stents are self-expandable devices widely used in many different clinical applications. In-silico methods could be a useful tool to improve the design stage and preoperative planning; however, numerical modeling of braided structures is not trivial. The geometries are often challenging, and a parametric representation is not always easily achieved. Moreover, in the literature, different options have been proposed to handle the contact among the wires, but an extensive comparison of these modeling techniques is missing. In this work, both the geometry and contact issues are discussed. Firstly, an effective strategy based on parametric equations to draw complex braided geometries is illustrated and exploited to build three beam meshes resembling commercial devices. Secondly, three finite element simulations (bending, crimping and confined release) were carried out to compare simplified contact techniques involving connector elements with the more realistic but computationally expensive option based on the general contact algorithm, which has already been validated in the literature through comparisons with experimental results. Both local (stress distribution) and global quantities (forces/displacements) were analyzed. The results obtained using the connectors are significantly affected by wire interpenetrations and over-constraint. The percentage errors reached considerably high values, exceeding 100% in the confined release test and 50% in the remaining cases study. Moreover, the errors do not show uniform trends but vary according to the stent geometry, boundary conditions, connector type and investigated entity, suggesting that it is not possible to replace the use of the general contact algorithm with simplified approaches.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929020302645; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.109841; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85085257001&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32517859; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0021929020302645; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.109841
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know