Study of the Hemodynamics Effects of an Isolated Systolic Hypertension (ISH) Condition on Cerebral Aneurysms Models, Using FSI Simulations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of the manuscript entitled: Study of the hemodynamics effects of an Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) condition on cerebral aneurysms models, using FSI simulations.

The reviewed manuscript is very interesting. FSI simulation is an interesting and relatively difficult approach for modeling. On the other hand, the same situation concerns experimental validation of the proposed model, because of concern with a biological object. Generally, the manuscript is written well (as a synthesis of a project report), however contains some elements that need to extend. Below the main elements:
1. Initial conditions and simplifications of the case (geometry and simulation model) should be detailed and (the most important) justified.
2. Details about geometry model dimensions should be provided (maybe add on fig. 3).
3. Details about the initial conditions should be justified.
4. Details of the mesh quality testing (quality parameters) should be provided. Only values and choices without justifying it's not enough.
5. Details on the criteria for the simulation model and its testing of convergence should be provided. Only selected values and choices without justifying them are not enough.
6. What about comparing CFD and experimental results? Some discussion is necessary. A separate subject is the comparison of the results with the experimental data in the range of critical elongation and the rupture strength. Please find that the force reaction, in this case, isn't longitudinal at all, but perpendicular to the blood vessel wall. The simulation is not about stretching, but about the analysis of the effect of blood pressure on the walls of the blood vessel. Some critical discussion is necessary.

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment".

Thank you so much for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper, talking about isolated systolic hypertension as potential cause of cerebral aneurysms, looks interesting. Please look at these points:

1. Lines 40-41: "which is the most common form of hypertension in elderly people (> 65 years old) but it is not uncommon in young and middle-aged adults" Please revise this sentence.  See this ref.    Cardiovascular Risk of Isolated Systolic or Diastolic Hypertension in Young Adults. Circulation. 2020 Jun 2;141(22):1778-1786. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044838. 
2. Lines 73-75 "material, with the five parameter Mooney-Rivlin model (Equation (2)), following the results measured by Valencia et al. [16]." Similarly to Valencia, Jorge M. et al, please include this reference at this point:  Wrapping of intracranial aneurysms: Single-center series and systematic review of the literature. Br J Neurosurg. 2015;29(6):785-91. doi: 10.3109/02688697.2015.1071320. 
3. Figure 3 is good. Can the author improve figure legend ?
4. Lines 163-164: "As can be seen, in 5 of 6 models, the ISH condition present the highest values, up to almost 120% higher than in the normal condition" How the authors can explain the behavior of model n° 5 ?
5. Does the study have any limitations? If any, please include them.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

 

Thank you so much for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Re-review of the manuscript entitled: Study of the hemodynamics effects of an isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) condition on cerebral aneurysms models, using FSI simulations

Like I found the manuscript is corrected. The authors prepared adequate answers,  provide corrections, and improve the manuscript. The reviewed paper has interesting applied aspects. FSI simulation is an interesting and relatively difficult approach for modeling. On the other hand, the same situation concerns experimental validation of the proposed model. The subject is an actual, so the paper should be interesting for the potential readers and should be citable also in the future. In summary: in view of responses and prepared corrections, I recommend accepting the paper in the present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors solved all my criticisms.