Comparison of existing aneurysm models and their path forward

The two most important aneurysm types are cerebral aneurysms (CA) and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), accounting together for over 80\% of all fatal aneurysm incidences. To minimise aneurysm related deaths, clinicians require various tools to accurately estimate its rupture risk. For both aneurysm types, the current state-of-the-art tools to evaluate rupture risk are identified and evaluated in terms of clinical applicability. We perform a comprehensive literature review, using the Web of Science database. Identified records (3127) are clustered by modelling approach and aneurysm location in a meta-analysis to quantify scientific relevance and to extract modelling patterns and further assessed according to PRISMA guidelines (179 full text screens). Beside general differences and similarities of CA and AAA, we identify and systematically evaluate four major modelling approaches on aneurysm rupture risk: finite element analysis and computational fluid dynamics as deterministic approaches and machine learning and assessment-tools and dimensionless parameters as stochastic approaches. The latter score highest in the evaluation for their potential as clinical applications for rupture prediction, due to readiness level and user friendliness. Deterministic approaches are less likely to be applied in a clinical environment because of their high model complexity. Because deterministic approaches consider underlying mechanism for aneurysm rupture, they have improved capability to account for unusual patient-specific characteristics, compared to stochastic approaches. We show that an increased interdisciplinary exchange between specialists can boost comprehension of this disease to design tools for a clinical environment. By combining deterministic and stochastic models, advantages of both approaches can improve accessibility for clinicians and prediction quality for rupture risk.Comment: 46 pages, 5 figure