| Title |
An in silico biomechanical analysis of the stent–esophagus interaction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10237-017-0948-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mathias Peirlinck, Nic Debusschere, Francesco Iannaccone, Peter D. Siersema, Benedict Verhegghe, Patrick Segers, Matthieu De Beule |
| Abstract |
Despite all technological innovations in esophageal stent design over the past 20 years, the association between the stent design's mechanical behavior and its effect on the clinical outcome has not yet been thoroughly explored. A parametric numerical model of a commercially available esophageal bioresorbable polymeric braided wire stent is set up, accounting for stent design aspects such as braiding angle, strut material, wire thickness, degradation and friction between the wires comprising a predictive tool on the device's mechanical behavior. Combining this tool with complex multilayered numerical models of the pathological in vivo stressed, actively contracting and buckling esophagus could provide clinicians and engineers with a patient-specific window into the mechanical aspects of stent-based esophageal intervention. This study integrates device and soft tissue mechanics in one computational framework to potentially aid in the understanding of the occurrence of specific symptoms and complications after stent placement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 10% |
| Japan | 1 | 10% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 16 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 8% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,853,596
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
#35
of 486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,602
of 320,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.