Association between aneurysm shoulder stress and abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion: A longitudinal follow-up study

Background Aneurysm expansion rate is an important indicator of the potential risk of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture. Stress within the AAA wall is also thought to be a trigger for its rupture. However, the association between aneurysm wall stresses and expansion of AAA is unclear. Methods and Results Forty-four patients with AAAs were included in this longitudinal follow-up study. They were assessed by serial abdominal ultrasonography and computed tomography scans if a critical size was reached or a rapid expansion occurred. Patient-specific 3-dimensional AAA geometries were reconstructed from the follow-up computed tomography images. Structural analysis was performed to calculate the wall stresses of the AAA models at both baseline and final visit. A nonlinear large-strain finite element method was used to compute the wall-stress distribution. The relationship between wall stresses and expansion rate was investigated. Slowly and rapidly expanding aneurysms had comparable baseline maximum diameters (median, 4.35 cm [interquartile range, 4.12 to 5.0 cm] versus 4.6 cm [interquartile range, 4.2 to 5.0 cm]; P=0.32). Rapidly expanding AAAs had significantly higher shoulder stresses than slowly expanding AAAs (median, 300 kPa [interquartile range, 280 to 320 kPa] versus 225 kPa [interquartile range, 211 to 249 kPa]; P=0.0001). A good correlation between shoulder stress at baseline and expansion rate was found (r=0.71; P=0.0001). Conclusion A higher shoulder stress was found to have an association with a rapidly expanding AAA. Therefore, it may be useful for estimating the expansion of AAAs and improve risk stratification of patients with AAAs.

No variance for filed orders: Hayes v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] QCA 260

In Hayes v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] QCA 260 the Queensland Court of Appeal examined the relationship between rules 7 (extending and shortening time) and 667 (setting aside) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), and held that r667(1) does not enable the court to set aside or vary an order after the order has been filed. The court found that, to the extent that this conclusion was contrary to the decision in McIntosh v Linke Nominees Pty Ltd [2010] 1 Qd R 152, the decision in McIntosh was wrong and should not be followed.