title: Effect of craniovertebral decompression on CSF dynamics in Chiari malformation type I studied with computational fluid dynamics: Laboratory investigation.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The effect of craniovertebral decompression surgery on CSF flow dynamics in patients with Chiari malformation Type I (CM-I) has been incompletely characterized. The authors used computational fluid dynamics to calculate the effect of decompression surgery on CSF flow dynamics in the posterior fossa and upper cervical spinal canal.
  
  
  METHODS
  Oscillatory flow was simulated in idealized 3D models of the normal adult and the CM-I subarachnoid spaces (both previously described) and in 3 models of CM-I post-craniovertebral decompressions. The 3 postoperative models were created from the CM model by virtually modifying the CM model subarachnoid space to simulate surgical decompressions of different magnitudes. Velocities and pressures were computed with the Navier-Stokes equations in Star-CD for multiple cycles of CSF flow oscillating at 80 cycles/min. Pressure gradients and velocities were compared for 8 levels extending from the posterior fossa to the C3-4 level. Relative pressures and peak velocities were plotted by level from the posterior fossa to C3-4. The heterogeneity of flow velocity distribution around the spinal cord was compared between models.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Peak systolic velocities were generally lower in the postoperative models than in the preoperative CM model. With the 2 larger surgical defects, peak systolic velocities were brought closer to normal model velocities (equal values at C-3 and C-4) than with the smallest surgical defect. For the smallest defect, peak velocities were decreased, but not to levels in the normal model. In the postoperative models, heterogeneity in flow velocity distribution around the spinal cord increased from normal model levels as the degree of decompression increased. Pressures in the 5 models differed in magnitude and in pattern. Pressure gradients along the spinal canal in the normal and CM models were nonlinear, with steeper gradients below C3-4 than above. The CM model had a steeper pressure gradient than the normal model above C3-4 and the same gradient below. The postoperative models had lower pressure gradients than the CM model above C2-3. The most conservative decompression had lower pressure gradients than the normal model above C2-3. The two larger decompression defects had CSF pressure gradients below those in the normal model above C2-3. These 2 models had a less steep gradient above C-3 and a steeper gradient below.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In computer simulations, craniovertebral surgical defects generally diminished CSF velocities and CSF pressures.
authors.affiliation: Telemark University College, Porsgrunn;
authors.forename: Svein O
authors.initials: SO
authors.lastname: Linge
authors.forename: Kent-A
authors.initials: KA
authors.lastname: Mardal
authors.forename: Anders
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Helgeland
authors.forename: John D
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Heiss
authors.forename: Victor
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Haughton
mesh_terms: D001139:Arnold-Chiari Malformation / Q000601:surgery*; D002555:Cerebrospinal Fluid / Q000502:physiology*; D015170:Cerebrospinal Fluid Pressure / Q000502:physiology*; D002574:Cervical Vertebrae / Q000601:surgery*; D003198:Computer Simulation; D019299:Decompression, Surgical; D006801:Humans; D015233:Models, Statistical; D012212:Rheology
keywords: CFD = computational fluid dynamics; CM = Chiari malformation; CM-I = CM Type I; Chiari malformation; PC = phase contrast; cervical; computer simulation; decompression surgery
references.citation: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 Sep;32(8):1474-81
references.pmid: 21596806
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e52284
references.pmid: 23284970
references.citation: Neurosurgery. 1994 Aug;35(2):214-23; discussion 223-4
references.pmid: 7969828
references.citation: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010 Aug;31(7):1331-6
references.pmid: 20203113
references.citation: J Neurosurg. 2004 Nov;101(2 Suppl):169-78
references.pmid: 15835104
references.citation: Neuroradiol J. 2013 Feb;26(1):106-10
references.pmid: 23859177
references.citation: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Oct;33(9):1756-62
references.pmid: 22517282
references.citation: J Biomech Eng. 2001 Feb;123(1):71-9
references.pmid: 11277305
references.citation: Childs Nerv Syst. 2004 May;20(5):336-40
references.pmid: 15085382
references.citation: J Biomech Eng. 2010 Jun;132(6):061009
references.pmid: 20887034
references.citation: Neurosurg Focus. 2000 Mar 15;8(3):E3
references.pmid: 16676926
references.citation: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004 Jan;25(1):142-5
references.pmid: 14729545
references.citation: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Aug;33(7):1326-30
references.pmid: 22403772
references.citation: Neuroradiol J. 2013 Apr;26(2):218-26
references.pmid: 23859246
references.citation: Radiology. 1995 Jul;196(1):195-202
references.pmid: 7784567
references.citation: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010 Jan;31(1):185-92
references.pmid: 19729542
references.citation: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 Jun-Jul;32(6):1149-53
references.pmid: 21511868
references.citation: Neurosurgery. 2004 Dec;55(6):1344-50; discussion 1350-1
references.pmid: 15574215
references.citation: J Neurosurg. 2012 Nov;117(5):942-6
references.pmid: 22978540
references.citation: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010 Jun;31(6):997-1002
references.pmid: 20223887
references.citation: J Neurosurg. 2005 Jul;103(1):46-52
references.pmid: 16121972
references.citation: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Oct;33(9):1752-5
references.pmid: 22499845