Evidence Hub

A systematic review of technologically enhanced assessment of vessel wall movement and mechanical function in dissected and healthy aortas

Saricilar EC, Haran C, Yoon W, Puttaswamy V, Budtz-Lilly J, Khashram M, Wanhainen A, Mani K

Seminars in vascular surgery, 2026

Abstract

Acute aortic dissection is a vascular emergency with unpredictable progression and outcomes. Standard imaging modalities, such as computed tomography angiography (CTA), facilitate diagnosis and operative planning but provide limited data on vessel wall mechanics and hemodynamics. Modern imaging and computational models may offer deeper insights into natural history prognostication and risk prediction. This PROSPERO-registered systematic review (CRD42024589703) followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. Eligible MEDLINE and Embase studies assessed vessel wall dynamics or hemodynamic modeling in healthy or dissected aortas. The risk of bias was assessed using Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions; the quality of evidence was evaluated with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. A total of 36 studies were included, mainly retrospective single-center cohort studies of CT/CTA, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, echocardiography, and digital subtraction angiography. An entry tear size greater than 10 mm on CTA was associated with increased false lumen flow and higher sheer wall stress, causing poor aortic remodeling, as confirmed with 4-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging. Distal entry tears and presence of more entry tears reduced the risk of pulsatile-type dissections, having a long-term protective effect. Helical flow patterns assessed through computational fluid dynamics…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free