1 / 26

Outline

Support Device for the iSCAN Anna DiRienzo Katelyn Lesk Amber Loree Jude Menie Daniel McChesney, MD April 13, 2007. Outline. Background Methods/Materials Conceptual designs Testing Methods Results Discussion Future Directions. Background on ICP measurement. ICP (intracranial pressure)

bert-chandler
Télécharger la présentation

Outline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Support Device for the iSCANAnna DiRienzoKatelyn LeskAmber LoreeJude MenieDaniel McChesney, MDApril 13, 2007

  2. Outline • Background • Methods/Materials • Conceptual designs • Testing Methods • Results • Discussion • Future Directions

  3. Background on ICP measurement • ICP (intracranial pressure) • Key indicator for various neurological diseases and trauma • Traditional measurements • Noninvasive measurements

  4. Background of the iSCAN • Function • Applies pressure to the exterior of the eye • Images the central retinal vein (CRV) • Relates changes in the CRV to intraocular pressure • Necessity • Other uses • Regulation: Class II device; de novo – 510(k)

  5. Background cont. • Parts: Lens, means to monitor applied pressure, visualization screen, control pad • Advantages: Noninvasive, single handheld unit • Disadvantages: Sterilization, difficult positioning, hard to stabilize, high risk of patient injury

  6. Necessity of Support System • Increases stability of iSCAN and ease of use in an emergency room setting • Prevents excessive applied pressure • Reduces risk of iSCAN dropping onto patient

  7. Client Requirements • Support a weight analog of the iSCAN (approx. 4 pounds) • Mobile • Sterilizable • Compact and easy to store • Stable within its expected range of motion • Large and small adjustment

  8. iSCAN Initial Designs • Design 1: Pivoting support system

  9. iSCAN Initial Designs cont. • Design 2: Over the hospital bed iSCAN support

  10. Initial Designs cont. • Design 3: Hospital cart as base of the support system

  11. Current Prototype • Conceptual design • IV pole • Universal clamp with IV handle attachment • 90 degree L-plate • Flexible gooseneck

  12. Methods of Testing • Stabilization • Sterilization • Strength • Positioning

  13. Stabilization • Pressure was applied to places that will most commonly come into contact with unintended forces • Gooseneck and IV pole • Times were recorded until the area of the attachment to the end of the gooseneck stopped vibrating • Four trials for four different people

  14. Results: Stabilization • Average vibration time with 5 lb load: • Striking gooseneck: 2.1 seconds • Striking IV pole: 2.1 seconds • Average vibration time without 5 lb load: • Striking gooseneck: 3.6 seconds • Striking IV pole: 3.3 seconds

  15. Sterilization • EtOH was applied to each novel surface of the support system once a day for one week

  16. Results: Sterilization • Visually inspected everyday for one week with EtOH • No deterioration observed

  17. Strength • Added weights in 2.5 lbs increments until unstable • Each weight increment was held stable for 5 minutes • Failure in this test was defined as instability at a time less than 5 minutes

  18. Strength cont. • Two positions were tested: Maximum Normal

  19. Results: Strength • Normal position • A weight of 7.5 lbs was held for 5 minutes • No additional weight was tested • Maximum position • A weight of 2.5 lbs was held for 5 minutes • A weight of 5 lbs was tested but was taken off after instability was observed (1.5 inch drop in gooseneck position)

  20. Positioning • Range of motion was determined in the following directions: • Lateral • Vertical • Distance from IV Pole • Normal vs. Maximum gooseneck

  21. Results: Positioning • Lateral • 16.5 inch range if base is immobilized • Vertical • Maximum height of 55 inches • Distance from IV Pole • Normal gooseneck - 19.5 inches • Maximum gooseneck - 22 inches

  22. Milestones Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Project Ideas Conceptual Designs #2 #1 #3 Parts Ordered Prototype Building Prototype Redesign Parts Ordered Testing All parts of this project were contributed to equally by all members of this group

  23. Discussion • Supported more than twice the weight analog of the redesigned iSCAN • Mobile, accomplished by six swivel wheels on IV pole base • Sterilizable - using EtOH • Compact and easy to store • Mechanically stable within its expected range of motion • Large adjustment

  24. Future Direction • Vertical Tracking System • Locking Wheels • Animal Testing

  25. Acknowledgments • Neurolife - Noninvasive Neurosurgical Solutions • Daniel McChesney, MD • Optomation • Nobuhiko “Poohsan” Tamura, Ph.D • Financial Support • Drs. Hal Wrigley and Linda Baker • Department of Bioengineering

  26. Thank You!!!

More Related