1 / 16

Implantable Orthopedic Sensors

Implantable Orthopedic Sensors. Group 4 Derek Sheesley Sunil Shah Michael Iskhakov Marina Louis Anthony Jones. Design Goal. Issues arise within prostheses without the doctors or wearers knowledge Estimations ok but more exact measurements needed Sensor that will [6]:

tallys
Télécharger la présentation

Implantable Orthopedic Sensors

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. Implantable Orthopedic Sensors Group 4 Derek Sheesley Sunil Shah Michael Iskhakov Marina Louis Anthony Jones

  2. Design Goal • Issues arise within prostheses without the doctors or wearers knowledge • Estimations ok but more exact measurements needed • Sensor that will [6]: • Give real time information • Alert the wearer when a problem arises

  3. Constraints • Size • 1 cm3 • Wireless sensor [6] • 2-5 millimeters across • 500 microns thick • Biocompatibility (must be…) • compatible with implant and body • micro-disc electrode arrays, poly hemahydrogels[3] • capable of withstanding forces in body

  4. Constraints • Risk/Benefit Factor • Biosensor must be made so that the risk of failure, as well as risk of further damage, is reduced • Minimally Invasive • Surgery should be kept minimal • Use of ultra-thin flexible biosensors (<100 micrometers thick) to reduce size of incisions and risk of injury during surgery [5] • Affordable • Must be relatively cheap and be able to be mass-produced

  5. Criteria • Strong, biocompatible material • Stainless steel, titanium[2] • Non-biocompatible materials coated with PEG or PDMS [3] • Collection • Good accuracy and precision • Reduce noise with gyroscopic system [5] • Telemetric data collection [6]

  6. Criteria • Monitor state of implant and surrounding area • Temperature, pH, force, pressure, etc. • Early warning system • Power Supplies • Kinetic and Thermoelectric energy harvesters [1] • Single inductor-capacitor component [4] • Wireless (no electrical components)

  7. Weaknesses FDA rationale: High risk to benefit ratio Highly Invasive Number of parameters measured Signal Collection a)Noise [5] b)Patient Confidentiality

  8. Strengths

  9. Accurate Diagnostics

  10. In the case of chronic infections of artificial joints associated with bacterial biofilmWhich is less invasive? Traumatic Implant removal Sensor bacterial eradication • microelectromechanicalsystem that could be embedded within the implanted joint to detect the presence of bacteria and to provide in situ treatment of the infection before a biofilm can form [4] Dr. Sri, [THK], retrieved from : https://learn.dcollege.net/bbcswebdav/pid-2140270dtcontentrid7564780_1/courses/20764.201325/Total%20Knee%20Replacement_SB.pdf

  11. Signal Collection Is Patient confidentiality at risk when a form of wireless communication is used to read a sensor?

  12. Conclusion • Incorporate a sensor into orthopedic prosthetics that will monitor their condition as they are being used by patients. • Example Prosthetics such as: Knee, Hip, Spine. • Sensors to record and transmit readings in concentration changes of specific substances present in surrounding blood and tissue.[8] • Chemicals, Biological substances, Ions, etc. • Sensor can’t be more invasive than its partner prosthetic; must be compatible both with orthopedic implant and patient. • Side effects of transmitting sensor can’t compromise the benefits of implant

  13. Conclusion • Transmission must be coherent, accurate and precise. • Possible depending on coating of sensor, such as a functionalized polymer coasting[8] • Ultimately, sensor will aid in gathering data to design a more efficient prosthetic.

  14. Sources [1] Andrea Cadei, et al,. 2013. Kinetic and thermal energy harvesters for implantable medical devices and biomedical autonomous sensors. Measurement Science and Technology, vol 25. Retrieved from: http://iopscience.iop.org/0957-0233/25/1/012003/pdf/0957-0233_25_1_012003.pdf [2] Ehrlich G. et al,. 2006. Engineering Approaches for the Detection and Control of Orthopaedic Biofilm Infections. National Institute of Health (437): 59– 66. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC151327 [3] Gusphyl Justin, et al,. 2008. Biometric hydrogels for biosensor implant biocompatibility: electrochemical characterization using micro-disc electrode arrays(MDEAs). Biomed Microdevices, vol 11:103-115. [4] Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2012. Implantable, Wireless Sensors Share Secres of Healing Tissues. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/922474572 [5] Sirivisot S. et al,. 2006. Developing Biosensors for Monitoring Orthopedic Tissue Growth. Material Research Society, vol. 950. Retrieved from: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8014 891 [6] Su-Jin K. et al,. 2012. Evaluation of the biompatibility of a coating material for an implantable bladder volume sensor. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 28, Issue 3: 123-129. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1607551X11002397

  15. Sources [7] Umbrecht, et at,. 2010. Wireless implantable passive strain sensor: design, fabrication and characterization. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering vol. 20, 14. Retrieved from: http://iopscience.iop.org/0960-1317/20/8/085005/pdf/0960-1317_20_8_085005.pdf [8] Guenther M., Gerlach G., et al. 2008. Hydrogel-based Sensor for a RheochemicalCharacterization of Solutions. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical. Transducers '07/Eurosensors XXI. Volume 132, Issue 2, 16 June 2008, Pages 471–476. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925400507009094

  16. Questions?

More Related