Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Contact-resolved deployment of the Contour Neurovascular System in patient-specific intracranial aneurysms

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A brain-aneurysm implant's final shape is set by friction and release history, not nominal size.

desk verdict First contact-resolved deployment simulation of the Contour device; the qualitative claims about friction and release depth hold up, but the model is under-specified (braid and friction parameters never get numeric values) and the existing post-treatment CTA is never used to anchor the FEM to reality. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13972 v1 pith:UXQFYLNI submitted 2026-07-15 physics.comp-ph physics.app-phphysics.bio-ph

Ratnadeep Pramanik , Fina Gie{ss}ler , Martin Frank , Ivo Steinbrecher , Matthias Mayr , Sylvia Saalfeld , Alexander Popp This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phphysics.app-phphysics.bio-ph
keywords IntracranialaneurysmsIntrasaccularflowdisruptorContourNeurovascularSystemGeometricallyexactbeamsNonlinearfrictionalcontactPatient-specificmodelingDeploymentsimulationComputationalbiomechanics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the final implanted shape of the Contour Neurovascular System, a basket-like flow disruptor for wide-neck brain aneurysms, cannot be predicted from the device's nominal diameter or from a visually fitted geometry. The authors build a contact-resolved finite-element model with the device as a dual-layer braid of 144 Nitinol wires, the aneurysm wall as a deformable shell, and frictional contact laws governing wire-wire and wire-wall interaction. On three patient-specific anatomies, the final seated state is highly sensitive to tangential slip resistance and vertical release depth: too little friction lets the device slide after wall contact, too much suppresses rearrangement needed for neck coverage. The consequence is that mechanical deployment simulation, not geometric fast placement, should supply the geometry for hemodynamic and fluid-structure interaction analyses.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the contact-resolved deployment simulation itself: the parametric braid model (Eqs. 1-5) generates a smooth dual-layer interwoven Nitinol braid with phase offsets; each wire is a geometrically exact Simo-Reissner beam; the wall is a nearly incompressible Yeoh hyperelastic shell; and normal impenetrability and regularized Coulomb friction govern wire-wire, wire-wall, and support contacts under a staged release protocol. This machinery converts qualitative notions like anchoring and conformability into measurable outputs: contact-area history, pole displacement, rim coverage fraction eta_cov, and largest uncovered gap g_max.

What would settle it

A controlled bench deployment in a patient-specific 3D-printed phantom with measured wire friction and wall compliance: if the simulated seated shape, pole position, and neck coverage do not match the measured ones for the same release depth, the central claim that friction and release history determine the seated state would be called into question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that deployment of the Contour device is a path-dependent contact problem: equilibrium morphology emerges from superelastic braid recovery, self-contact, wall contact, tangential slip, wall compliance, and staged release, and cannot be inferred from nominal diameter or a visually fitted final shape. Using a wire-resolved dual-layer braid (geometrically exact beams, 144 wires), a hyperelastic wall, and regularized Coulomb friction, the authors show that neck coverage, largest uncovered gap, and wall contact area are structural outputs depending on friction and release height. Low friction permits excessive post-contact sliding; near-stick anchoring restricts compliance;

Load-bearing premise

The simulations assume that the parametric braid, the Nitinol and wall material parameters, and the friction range of Tables 1 and 2 together represent the real Contour device and real patient aneurysm walls; these are bridge calibrations not identified from device-specific bench tests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hemodynamic and fluid-structure interaction studies of Contour-treated aneurysms should use mechanically seated deployment geometry rather than visually placed geometry, since flow inherits any mechanical error in the geometry.
  • Friction is a control parameter: an intermediate tangential resistance appears necessary to balance conformability during blooming with resistance to late migration, so device surface treatment or wire coating could be tuned.
  • Release depth relative to the neck plane is a procedural parameter that changes the route to seating, so virtual treatment planning should include it as an adjustable input.
  • The same device at the same nominal size can seat differently in different anatomies, explaining deformation, migration, and recurrence as mechanical outcomes rather than random events.
  • A bench-deployment study in patient-specific phantoms with measured wire friction and wall compliance can calibrate the model and test its predicted seated shapes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the path-dependence claim holds, device sizing rules based on nominal diameter versus ostium size may need to incorporate a planned release depth and expected wall friction; otherwise the same size may seat differently across patients.
  • The identification of an intermediate friction regime suggests a testable clinical hypothesis: surface modifications that tune wire friction could improve neck coverage without sacrificing migration resistance, which bench tests with different coatings could examine.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a contact-resolved finite-element framework for simulating deployment of the Contour Neurovascular System (CNS) inside patient-specific intracranial aneurysm geometries. The device is modeled as a dual-layer, 144-wire Nitinol braid using geometrically exact Simo–Reissner beams; the vessel wall is a deformable Yeoh-type hyperelastic shell; wire–wire and wire–wall interactions are treated with regularized Coulomb friction; and release is applied through a staged, time-dependent protocol. Deployment metrics—contact area, pole displacement, neck coverage fraction η_cov, and largest uncovered gap g_max—are computed as outputs rather than prescribed. The framework is applied to three patient anatomies and compared qualitatively with an imaging-guided fast-placement reconstruction. The central claim is that CNS seating is a path-dependent contact problem in which friction and release depth dominate final morphology, and that geometric fast placement cannot capture the mechanically consistent equilibrium.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the paper would address a genuine gap in computational treatment planning for intrasaccular flow disruptors: current CFD/FSI workflows usually prescribe a post-deployment geometry and thereby neglect the mechanics that determine neck coverage and apposition. The paper has real strengths: the use of beam–shell frictional contact with staged release is methodologically appropriate; the outputs are emergent from the equilibrium/contact problem rather than fitted to a target; the authors are explicit that wall and Nitinol parameters are bridge calibrations and that the three-case cohort is a transferability demonstration, not statistical validation. These honesty features are welcome. However, the predictive claim about friction and release depth as the dominant controls is currently not anchored to any quantitative comparison with observed implanted devices, and the device model is under-specified by missing braid and friction parameters. The significance is therefore conditional on a validation or a substantially narrowed claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, §2.3, Fig. 8] The manuscript has post-treatment CTA for all three patients but uses it only to guide the fast-placement reconstructions; the FEM deployment is never compared quantitatively to the observed implanted device. Figure 8 compares FEM with fast placement, but fast placement is itself CTA-guided, so this only shows that the FEM differs from a CTA-informed visual fit. This is a load-bearing gap: the central claim that friction and release depth dominate seated morphology, and that the simulated geometry is 'patient-specific,' requires an external anchor. I ask the authors to add a quantitative comparison between the simulated seated state and the post-treatment CTA, e.g., pole position, centroid distance, neck coverage metrics (η_cov, g_max), or surface-distance errors. If such a comparison is not possible, the claims should be explicitly restricted to a simulation-internal demonstration.
  2. [§3.1, Eqs. (1)–(5), Table 2] The braid parametrization in Eqs. (1)–(5) contains seven parameters—A_r, W_r, p_r, A_w, W_w, p_w, and φ_i—that are never assigned numeric values. Table 1 gives only the wire count and nominal diameter. This makes the device model irreproducible and prevents assessing whether the simulated braid has a realistic stiffness, pore geometry, or crossover topology. Similarly, Table 2 reports only symbolic labels for the friction variants (p00, p11, p1d11, p3d13, p5d15, r near stick) with no numeric μ values, so the claimed 'useful regime' of friction is not quantitatively identified. Please provide the braid parameter values and the μ values used, or explicitly state that these are unknown and perform a sensitivity study over them.
  3. [§5, Table 1] The authors admit that the aneurysm wall and Nitinol parameters are bridge calibrations rather than device-specific bench-test identifications. This admission is honest, but it has consequences for the central claim. The quantitative outputs—contact area, η_cov, g_max, and the friction regime considered 'useful'—can shift if the true wall stiffness, superelastic response, or wire friction differ. Since post-treatment imaging data already exist, the missing validation is not merely a future step; it is an available test. I request either (a) a quantitative CTA-based comparison that would support the current claims, or (b) a deliberate reframing of the paper as a proof-of-concept on synthetic or phantom geometries, with the patient-specific cases treated only as illustrative. Without one of these, the statement that friction and release depth are 'the dominant controls' is stronger than th
  4. [§4.3 and Figures 6–7] The release-depth sweep is described as systematic, but no numerical release heights h are reported and no per-case values of the final metrics (η_cov, g_max, contact area) are given in a table. Figures 6 and 7 show history curves without quantitative axes labels in the text, making it difficult to assess the magnitude of the claimed effects. Please report the actual release heights and the resulting final metrics for each variant, at least for the baseline case, so the reader can see the effect size rather than only its qualitative direction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (23)] The term 'equivalent (normalized) circular neck area' is unclear: A_neck,eq = L_neck^2/(4π) has units of area and is not normalized in the usual dimensionless sense. Please clarify the wording and, if normalization is intended, state the reference quantity.
  2. [Table 1] The Rayleigh damping entries are listed as 'α=10, β=10^-4' with units 's^-1, s', which is dimensionally inconsistent. Please check and provide the correct units or clarify that these are penalty-style numerical damping coefficients.
  3. [§1, last paragraph before §2] There is a typographical artifact in 'V ariationally consistent beam-beam coupling.' Please fix to 'Variationally.'
  4. [Data and code availability] The statement 'available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request' is weak for a computational mechanics paper. Since the framework depends on many parameters and patient geometries, archiving input files, mesh-generation scripts, and post-processing code in a permanent repository would substantially improve reproducibility.
  5. [Figures 4–7] The captions describe contact-area and pole-displacement histories, but the figure axes are not labeled in the text. Please ensure all subplots have explicit axis labels and units, and consider adding a legend identifying the friction variants directly on the plots.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: deployed morphology is solved, not fitted; friction/release sweeps are sensitivity studies; fast placement is explicitly a qualitative comparator.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The braid parametrization of Eqs. (1)–(5) defines only the undeployed reference configuration, and the paper explicitly states that 'Equation (5) defines the reference braid before crimping and release. It does not prescribe the implanted geometry.' The deployed state is obtained by solving the mixed-dimensional structural/contact problem, Eqs. (6)–(20), with final metrics (η_cov, g_max, A_contact, u_tip) defined as post-processing functionals of the solved state (Eqs. (21)–(23)). No output quantity is a fitted version of an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The friction/contact variants in Table 2 and the release-height variations are honest sensitivity sweeps: they are independent simulation parameters, and the reported history curves and final metrics are emergent outcomes. The only imaging-guided element, the fast-placement comparator, is manually fitted using post-treatment CTA, but the paper explicitly disclaims it as a mechanical solution ('it is not a (robust) mechanical solution...') and uses it only as a qualitative reference; it does not enter the FEM derivation or define the central quantitative claims. The acknowledged limitations — 'bridge calibrations' for wall/Nitinol parameters, a small cohort, and the absence of device-specific bench validation — concern external validity and predictive credibility, not circularity. Self-citations ([43]–[46], [48], [52]) are methodological building blocks (beam/surface coupling, beam-to-beam contact formulations) and are not used to justify the deployment results through an unverified uniqueness theorem or a smuggled ansatz. No specific equation can be exhibited that reduces any claimed prediction to its input by construction, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework leans on a large set of borrowed or hand-chosen inputs: wall and Nitinol parameters are explicitly 'bridge calibrations' (§3.3, Table 1), friction is a swept design space (Table 2), and the braid geometry parameters of Eqs. (2) and (5) are never reported. No new physical entities are introduced. The central qualitative claim survives parameter variation, but every quantitative output (contact area, rim coverage, uncovered gap) is a function of these unvalidated inputs.

free parameters (8)
  • Yeoh wall coefficients C10, C20, C30 = 0.80 / 2.20 / 6.00 MPa
    Chosen 'to provide deformable confinement while keeping the contact analysis robust' (§3.3); not patient-specific, not from wall tensile tests.
  • Wall thickness t_wall = 0.50 mm
    Assumed uniform wall thickness; not measured per patient.
  • Wall volumetric parameter D1 = 0.04 MPa^-1
    Chosen for nearly incompressible response; no data fit.
  • Rayleigh damping α, β = 10, 1e-4
    Numerical damping for explicit dynamics; no physical measurement.
  • Nitinol superelastic parameters (EA, EM, ν, ε_tr, σ_Ls, σ_Lf, σ_Us, σ_Uf, σ_Ls,c) = see Table 1
    'Bridge calibration rather than a full device-specific thermomechanical characterization' (§3.3, §5); values from literature, not from bench tests of the actual device.
  • Friction coefficient μ per variant = p00=0 ... r≈near-stick
    Swept parameter space (Table 2), not measured; the sensitivity conclusion depends on this sweep, but no measured Nitinol-on-wall or Nitinol-on-Nitinol friction value anchors it.
  • Braid weave parameters A_r, W_r, p_r, A_w, W_w, p_w, phase offsets φ_i = not reported
    Eqs. (2) and (5) define the entire device centerline geometry, yet no numeric values are given in the text; device geometry is irreproducible without them.
  • Release height h = varied systematically
    Procedural parameter swept to assess placement sensitivity (§3.4).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Simo–Reissner geometrically exact beam theory adequately represents Nitinol wire mechanics including wire-wire contact at crossovers
    Basis of the device discretization (§3.2); wires are 1D continua with SO(3) triads, standard for slender structures but an idealization of braided wire contact.
  • domain assumption Regularized penalty normal contact (Eqs. 14–15) with penalty stiffness ε_n and regularized Coulomb friction (Eqs. 16–18) capture wire-wire and wire-wall interaction
    Contact formulation (§3.4); penalty/regularization parameters influence stick-slip dynamics and final state; results are penalty-dependent unless converged.
  • domain assumption Auricchio superelastic constitutive law with Table 1 parameters describes the device Nitinol through crimping and release
    Material model §3.3, explicitly labeled a bridge calibration (§5).
  • domain assumption Nearly incompressible homogeneous Yeoh shell with thickness 0.5 mm represents patient-specific aneurysm walls
    Wall model §3.3; real aneurysm walls are heterogeneous, anisotropic, and locally thinner; parameters are not from patient data.
  • domain assumption The staged release protocol (imported preloaded state, approach, constrained blooming, final pole release; Eq. 20 Dirichlet control) reproduces clinical delivery mechanics
    Release model §3.4; the initial crimped/preloaded configuration is imported, not derived from catheter delivery mechanics.
  • domain assumption The parametric braid (Eqs. 1–5) reproduces the real Contour dual-layer architecture (2×72 wires) and its pore topology
    Device representation §2.2/§3.1, validated only qualitatively against microscopy (Fig. 3); weave parameters unlisted.
  • domain assumption Blood forces and wall prestress during deployment are negligible compared to structural/contact forces
    No fluid coupling or transmural pressure in the deployment model; the device opens in a pressurized, blood-filled sac in reality. Hemodynamics is deferred to future work (§6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contact-resolved deployment of the Contour Neurovascular System in patient-specific intracranial aneurysms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UXQFYLNI

@misc{pith2026260713972,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contact-resolved deployment of the Contour Neurovascular System in patient-specific intracranial aneurysms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UXQFYLNI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13972}
}
read the original abstract

While intrasaccular flow disruptors are widely used to treat wide-neck intracranial aneurysms, state-of-the-art patient-specific computational models routinely neglect the deployment mechanics by prescribing a pre-seated geometry. This shortcut oversimplifies the true physics and misrepresents the Contour Neurovascular System (CNS), whose critical biomechanical features, such as neck coverage, wall apposition, and migration resistance, are highly path-dependent. To resolve this limitation, we present a contact-resolved finite-element framework that explicitly computes the structural mechanics of implant deployment within patient-specific vascular environments. The device is discretized as a dual-layer interwoven Nitinol braid using geometrically exact beams, while the vascular wall is represented as a deformable hyperelastic shell. Non-linear frictional contact formulations govern complex wire-wire and wire-wall interactions under a staged release protocol. Evaluating three anatomical phenotypes reveals that the final equilibrium morphology is highly sensitive to tangential slip resistance and vertical release depth. Frictionless assumptions permit excessive post-contact sliding, whereas near-stick conditions enhance anchoring but restrict local compliance. Crucially, conventional geometric fast placement fails to capture these critical contact interactions and wall-supported mechanical equilibrium. This deployment-resolved framework establishes a biomechanically grounded foundation for downstream hemodynamics, fluid-structure interaction, and mechanobiological thrombus-formation modeling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13972 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Patient-specific aneurysm geometries used as deformable shell domains in the deployment analyses. The red dotted circles mark the aneurysm region. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Device geometries used before release. The deployed configuration is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Light microscopy images of the Contour braid (top row) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Device-wall contact area histories for the friction/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Monitored pole displacement for the friction/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Device-wall contact area histories for the investigated vertical release [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pole displacement histories for the investigated release heights. To [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Front-view comparison of contact-resolved FEM deployment and imaging-guided fast placement for all three patient-specific anatomies. The fast-placement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Etminan, G

    N. Etminan, G. J. Rinkel, Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: development, rupture and preventive manage- ment, Nature Reviews Neurology 12 (12) (2016) 699–713

    2016

  2. [2]

    Backes, G

    D. Backes, G. J. Rinkel, K. G. Laban, A. Algra, M. D. Vergouwen, Patient-and aneurysm-specific risk factors for intracranial aneurysm growth: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Stroke 47 (4) (2016) 951–957

    2016

  3. [3]

    J. L. Brisman, J. K. Song, D. W. Newell, Cerebral aneurysms, New England Journal of Medicine 355 (9) (2006) 928–939

    2006

  4. [4]

    Texakalidis, A

    P. Texakalidis, A. Sweid, N. Mouchtouris, E. C. Peterson, C. Sioka, L. Rangel-Castilla, J. Reavey-Cantwell, P. Jab- bour, Aneurysm formation, growth, and rupture: the bi- ology and physics of cerebral aneurysms, World Neuro- surgery 130 (2019) 277–284

    2019

  5. [5]

    D. C. Lauzier, A. L. Huguenard, A. I. Srienc, S. J. Cler, J. W. Osbun, A. R. Chatterjee, A. K. Vellimana, A. P. Kansagra, C. P. Derdeyn, D. T. Cross, A review of techno- logical innovations leading to modern endovascular brain aneurysm treatment, Frontiers in Neurology 14 (2023) 1156887. 8

    2023

  6. [6]

    Fatania, T

    K. Fatania, T. Patankar, Comprehensive review of the re- cent advances in devices for endovascular treatment of complex brain aneurysms, The British Journal of Radiol- ogy 95 (1129) (2022) 20210538

    2022

  7. [7]

    R. M. Starke, C. R. Durst, A. Evans, D. Ding, D. M. Raper, M. E. Jensen, R. W. Crowley, K. C. Liu, Endovascular treat- ment of unruptured wide-necked intracranial aneurysms: comparison of dual microcatheter technique and stent- assisted coil embolization, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 7 (4) (2015) 256–261

    2015

  8. [8]

    Briganti, G

    F. Briganti, G. Leone, M. Marseglia, G. Mariniello, F. Caranci, A. Brunetti, F. Maiuri, Endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms using flow-diverter devices: a sys- tematic review, The Neuroradiology Journal 28 (4) (2015) 365–375

    2015

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    D. M. Heiferman, N. Goyal, V . Inoa, C. M. Nickele, A. S. Arthur, A new era in the treatment of wide necked bifur- cation aneurysms: intrasaccular flow disruption, Interven- tional Neuroradiology 30 (1) (2024) 31–36

    2024

  2. [10]

    M. M. Shao, T. G. White, J. B. Bassett, E. Dowlati, S. H. Mehta, C. Werner, D. Golub, K. A. Shah, A. R. Dehdashti, I. Teron, Intrasaccular treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a comprehensive review, Journal of Clinical Medicine 13 (20) (2024) 6162

    2024

  3. [11]

    Goubergrits, J

    L. Goubergrits, J. Schaller, U. Kertzscher, T. Woelken, M. Ringelstein, A. Spuler, Hemodynamic impact of cere- bral aneurysm endovascular treatment devices: coils and flow diverters, Expert Review of Medical Devices 11 (4) (2014) 361–373

    2014

  4. [12]

    S. F. Maroufi, M. S. Fallahi, M. Waqas, E. I. Levy, Com- parison between woven endobridge and coiling with and without stent assistance for intracranial bifurcation and wide-neck aneurysms: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, Journal of Neurosurgery 141 (4) (2...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Dholakia, C

    R. Dholakia, C. Sadasivan, D. J. Fiorella, H. H. Woo, B. B. Lieber, Hemodynamics of flow diverters, Journal of Biome- chanical Engineering 139 (2) (2017) 021002

    2017

  6. [14]

    C. Wang, Z. Tian, J. Liu, L. Jing, N. Paliwal, S. Wang, Y . Zhang, J. Xiang, A. H. Siddiqui, H. Meng, Flow diverter effect of lvis stent on cerebral aneurysm hemodynamics: a comparison with enterprise stents and the pipeline device, Journal of Translational Medicine 14 (1) (2016) 199

    2016

  7. [15]

    L. Jing, J. Zhong, J. Liu, X. Yang, N. Paliwal, H. Meng, S. Wang, Y . Zhang, Hemodynamic effect of flow di- verter and coils in treatment of large and giant intracranial aneurysms, World Neurosurgery 89 (2016) 199–207

    2016

  8. [16]

    I. S. Muskens, J. T. Senders, H. H. Dasenbrock, T. R. Smith, M. L. Broekman, The woven endobridge device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review, World Neurosurgery 98 (2017) 809–817

    2017

  9. [17]

    D. E. Mantilla, D. D. Vera, A. F. Ortiz, F. Nicoud, V . Costalat, The Woven EndoBridge device, an effective and safe alternative endovascular treatment of intracra- nial aneurysm: systematic review, Interventional Neu- roradiology (2023) 15910199231201544 doi:10.1177/ 15910199...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Hecker, E

    C. Hecker, E. Broussalis, J. A. Pfaff, S. Pikija, C. J. Griesse- nauer, M. Killer-Oberpfalzer, Comparison of the contour neurovascular system and woven endobridge device for treatment of wide-necked cerebral aneurysms at a bifurca- tion or sidewall, Journal of Neurosurgery 139...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Wodarg, F

    F. Wodarg, F. B. Neves, F. Gärtner, N. Larsen, S. Peters, J. Hensler, T. Klintz, J. Mahnke, H. Ahmeti, A. Doukas, Embolization of ruptured and unruptured aneurysms with the contour neurovascular system: summary of 106 cases, American Journal of Neuroradiology 46 (4) (2025) 698– 705

    2025

  12. [20]

    Larsen, F

    N. Larsen, F. Wodarg, J. Hensler, K. Mostafa, S. Peters, M. Pravdivtseva, S. Saalfeld, F. Gärtner, Morphological factors and device deformation associated with recurrence in intracranial aneurysms treated with the contour neurovas- cular system, Journal of Neuroradiology (2026) 101407

    2026

  13. [21]

    C. Y . Akhunbay-Fudge, K. Deniz, A. K. Tyagi, T. Patankar, Endovascular treatment of wide-necked intracranial aneurysms using the novel contour neurovascular system: a single-center safety and feasibility study, Journal of Neu- roInterventional Surgery 12 (10) (2020) 987–992

    2020

  14. [22]

    Bhogal, I

    P. Bhogal, I. Lylyk, J. Chudyk, N. Perez, C. Bleise, P. Lylyk, The contour-early human experience of a novel aneurysm occlusion device, Clinical Neuroradiology 31 (2021) 147– 154

    2021

  15. [23]

    C. J. Griessenauer, S. Ghozy, A. Biondi, C. Hecker, F. Wodarg, T. Liebig, T. Patankar, S. Lamin, M. Martínez- Galdámez, C. Cognard, Contour neurovascular system for endovascular embolization of cerebral aneurysms: a multi- center cohort study of 10 european neurovascular cente...

    2025

  16. [24]

    O. Koc, M. Mahmoud, E. Mahmoud, A. Ayyad, A. Own, Delayed aneurysm rupture following endovascular treat- ment with contour device: a case report, Neurointervention (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    M. Lyu, R. Torii, C. Liang, T. W. Peach, P. Bhogal, L. Makalanda, Q. Li, Y . Ventikos, D. Chen, Treatment for middle cerebral artery bifurcation aneurysms: in silico comparison of the novel contour device and conventional flow-diverters, Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobi-...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Korte, F

    J. Korte, F. Gaidzik, N. Larsen, E. Schütz, T. Damm, F. Wodarg, J.-B. Hövener, O. Jansen, G. Janiga, P. Berg, 9 et al., In vitro and in silico assessment of flow modula- tion after deploying the contour neurovascular system in intracranial aneurysm models, Journal of NeuroInte...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Korte, F

    J. Korte, F. Gaidzik, L. Spitz, M. S. Pravdivtseva, D. Behme, N. Larsen, S. Saalfeld, P. Berg, Analysis of the treatment effect of the contour neurovascular system in intracranial aneurysms: larger neck coverage area is associated with longitudinal flow reduction, Computers in...

    2025

  20. [28]

    Spitz, J

    L. Spitz, J. Korte, F. Gaidzik, N. Larsen, B. Preim, S. Saalfeld, Assessment of intracranial aneurysm neck deformation after contour deployment, International Jour- nal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 19 (12) (2024) 2321–2327

    2024

  21. [29]

    Frank, F

    M. Frank, F. Holzberger, M. Horvat, J. Kirschke, M. Mayr, M. Muhr, N. Nebulishvili, A. Popp, J. Schwart- ing, B. Wohlmuth, Numerical simulation of endovascu- lar treatment options for cerebral aneurysms, GAMM- Mitteilungen 47 (3) (2024) e202370007

    2024

  22. [30]

    Abdehkakha, A

    A. Abdehkakha, A. L. Hammond, T. R. Patel, A. H. Sid- diqui, G. F. Dargush, H. Meng, Cerebral aneurysm flow diverter modeled as a thin inhomogeneous porous medium in hemodynamic simulations, Computers in Biology and Medicine 139 (2021) 104988

    2021

  23. [31]

    Berod, C

    A. Berod, C. Chnafa, S. Mendez, F. Nicoud, A heteroge- neous model of endovascular devices for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering 38 (2) (2022) e3552

    2022

  24. [32]

    Reymond, G

    P. Reymond, G. Bernava, O. Brina, J. Hofmeister, A. Rosi, K.-O. Lövblad, P. Machi, A novel method for brain aneurysms computed fluid dynamics analysis after flow diverter stent implantation based on micro-computed to- mography reconstruction, Journal of Biomechanics (2025) 112634

    2025

  25. [33]

    P. Berg, S. Saalfeld, S. V oß, O. Beuing, G. Janiga, A review on the reliability of hemodynamic modeling in intracranial aneurysms: why computational fluid dynamics alone can- not solve the equation, Neurosurgical Focus 47 (1) (2019) E15

    2019

  26. [34]

    Campo-Deaño, M

    L. Campo-Deaño, M. S. Oliveira, F. T. Pinho, A re- view of computational hemodynamics in middle cerebral aneurysms and rheological models for blood flow, Applied Mechanics Reviews 67 (3) (2015) 030801

    2015

  27. [35]

    M. A. Boniforti, G. Vittucci, R. Magini, Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysm: the importance of the rheological model in blood flow simulations, Bioengineer- ing 11 (6) (2024) 522

    2024

  28. [36]

    J. H. Kim, T. J. Kang, W.-R. Yu, Mechanical modeling of self-expandable stent fabricated using braiding technology, Journal of Biomechanics 41 (15) (2008) 3202–3212. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.08.005

    2008 doi

  29. [37]

    De Beule, S

    M. De Beule, S. Van Cauter, P. Mortier, D. Van Loo, R. Van Impe, P. Verdonck, B. Verhegghe, Virtual opti- mization of self-expandable braided wire stents, Medical Engineering & Physics 31 (4) (2009) 448–453

    2009

  30. [38]

    Kelly, D

    N. Kelly, D. J. McGrath, C. A. Sweeney, K. Kurten- bach, J. A. Grogan, S. Jockenhoevel, B. J. O’Brien, P. E. McHugh, Comparison of computational modelling tech- niques for braided stent analysis, Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 22 (16) (2019) 1334–1344

    2019

  31. [39]

    C. G. McKenna, T. J. Vaughan, A finite element investi- gation on design parameters of bare and polymer-covered self-expanding wire braided stents, Journal of the Mechan- ical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 115 (2021) 104305

    2021

  32. [40]

    Zaccaria, G

    A. Zaccaria, G. Pennati, L. Petrini, Analytical methods for braided stents design and comparison with fea, Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 119 (2021) 104560

    2021

  33. [41]

    Abdollahi, A

    R. Abdollahi, A. Shahi, D. Roy, S. Lessard, R. Mongrain, G. Soulez, Virtual and analytical self-expandable braided stent treatment models, Medical Engineering & Physics 126 (2024) 104145

    2024

  34. [42]

    M. S. Pravdivtseva, A. N. Pravdivtsev, S. Peters, J. Hensler, N. Larsen, J.-B. H"ovener, O. Jansen, F. Wodarg, The effect of the size of the new Contour neurovascular device for altering intraaneurysmal flow, Interventional Neuroradiology 31 (1) (2025) 49–56. doi:10.1177/ 1591...

    2025

  35. [43]

    Steinbrecher, N

    I. Steinbrecher, N. Hagmeyer, C. Meier, A. Popp, A consistent mixed-dimensional coupling approach for 1d Cosserat beams and 2d surfaces in 3d space, Computational Mechanics 76 (5) (2025) 1233–1260. doi:10.1007/ s00466-025-02647-9

    2025

  36. [44]

    A. Popp, I. Steinbrecher, Finite element formulations for beam-to-solid interaction: from embedded fibers towards contact, in: Current Trends and Open Problems in Compu- tational Mechanics, Springer, 2022, pp. 425–434

    2022

  37. [45]

    Popp, State-of-the-art computational methods for fi- nite deformation contact modeling of solids and structures, Contact Modeling for Solids and Particles (2018) 1–86

    A. Popp, State-of-the-art computational methods for fi- nite deformation contact modeling of solids and structures, Contact Modeling for Solids and Particles (2018) 1–86

    2018

  38. [46]

    Steinbrecher, N

    I. Steinbrecher, N. Hagmeyer, C. Meier, A. Popp, A varia- tionally consistent beam-to-beam point coupling formula- tion for geometrically exact beam theories, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.02049 (2026).arXiv:2604.02049

    2026 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Shiozaki, T

    S. Shiozaki, T. Otani, S. Fujimura, H. Takao, S. Wada, Computational modeling of braided-stent deployment for interpreting the mechanism of stent flattening, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering 37 (12) (2021) e3335.doi:10.1002/cnm.3335. 10

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    Firmbach, I

    M. Firmbach, I. Steinbrecher, A. Popp, M. Mayr, Com- putational challenges in mixed-dimensional beam/solid coupling, PAMM 23 (1) (2023) e202200227

    2023

  41. [49]

    J. C. Simo, A finite strain beam formulation. the three- dimensional dynamic problem. part i, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 49 (1) (1985) 55– 70

    1985

  42. [50]

    J. C. Simo, L. Vu-Quoc, A three-dimensional finite-strain rod model. part I: Kinematics and constitutive equations, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 58 (1) (1986) 79–116

    1986

  43. [51]

    J. C. Simo, L. Vu-Quoc, On the dynamics in space of rods undergoing large motions: a geometrically exact approach, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 66 (2) (1988) 125–161

    1988

  44. [52]

    Meier, A

    C. Meier, A. Popp, W. A. Wall, Geometrically exact finite element formulations for slender beams: Kirchhoff-love theory versus simo-reissner theory, Archives of Computa- tional Methods in Engineering 26 (1) (2019) 163–243

    2019

  45. [53]

    Bazilevs, M.-C

    Y . Bazilevs, M.-C. Hsu, Y . Zhang, S. Wang, T. Kvams- dal, S. Hentschel, J. G. Isaksen, Computational vascular fluid-structure interaction: methodology and application to cerebral aneurysms, Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology 9 (4) (2010) 481–498

    2010

  46. [54]

    Torii, M

    R. Torii, M. Oshima, T. Kobayashi, K. Takagi, T. E. Tezdu- yar, Fluid-structure interaction modeling of blood flow and cerebral aneurysm: significance of artery and aneurysm shapes, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and En- gineering 198 (45-46) (2009) 3613–3621

    2009

  47. [55]

    Takizawa, T

    K. Takizawa, T. Brummer, T. E. Tezduyar, P. R. Chen, A comparative study based on patient-specific fluid-structure interaction modeling of cerebral aneurysms, Journal of Applied Mechanics 79 (2012) 010908

    2012

  48. [56]

    Raviol, G

    J. Raviol, G. Plet, R. Hasegawa, K. Yu, H. Kosukegawa, M. Ohta, H. Magoariec, C. Pailler-Mattei, Towards the mechanical characterisation of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: numerical modelling of interactions between a deformation device and the aneurysm wall, Journal of the...

    2024

  49. [57]

    Raviol, G

    J. Raviol, G. Plet, J.-B. Langlois, S. Si-Mohamed, H. Magoariec, C. Pailler-Mattei, In vivo mechanical char- acterization of arterial wall using an inverse analysis pro- cedure: application on an animal model of intracranial aneurysm, Royal Society Open Science 11 (4) (2024) 231936

    2024

  50. [58]

    Auricchio, R

    F. Auricchio, R. L. Taylor, J. Lubliner, Shape-memory al- loys: macromodelling and numerical simulations of the superelastic behavior, Computer Methods in Applied Me- chanics and Engineering 146 (3-4) (1997) 281–312

    1997

  51. [59]

    Elsisy, Y

    M. Elsisy, Y . Chun, Materials properties and manufacturing processes of nitinol endovascular devices, in: Bio-materials and Prototyping Applications in Medicine, Springer, 2020, pp. 59–79. 11

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.