Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

GROUP 1: SUPERVISOR: MICHAEL LASAGADR. TED HUBBARD ANDREW ALLANCLIENTS: RILEY WILSONDR. MICHAEL DUNBAR XIANG GONGDAVE WILSON Femoral Fracture Reduction.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "GROUP 1: SUPERVISOR: MICHAEL LASAGADR. TED HUBBARD ANDREW ALLANCLIENTS: RILEY WILSONDR. MICHAEL DUNBAR XIANG GONGDAVE WILSON Femoral Fracture Reduction."— Presentation transcript:

1 GROUP 1: SUPERVISOR: MICHAEL LASAGADR. TED HUBBARD ANDREW ALLANCLIENTS: RILEY WILSONDR. MICHAEL DUNBAR XIANG GONGDAVE WILSON Femoral Fracture Reduction Device 1

2 Presentation Outline Problems with Current Surgery Design Requirements Final Design Test Procedure and Results Strengths and Weaknesses Final Budget Conclusions and Recommendations 2 Red Line 1 inch

3 Problem with Current Surgery Time in the Operating Room Huge cost Huge health risk Difficult Procedure Only skilled surgeons capable Possibility for infection Forces on the Patient Manual Fracture Reduction 3

4 Problematic Step 4

5 Design Requirements (General) To bridge femoral gap To reduce femoral fracture 5

6 Design Requirements (General) 6

7 Design Requirements (Specific) Must be able to be sterilized or be disposable Must fit in medullar canal (avg. diameter of 12mm) Must be greater than 480 mm in length Must be able to bend 30 degrees Must have separate tip control Must be hollow through center (intermediate wire 2.5mm) Must be able to apply 75Nm moment about the knee joint 7

8 Final Design Concept Snake Rod Design 8

9 Final Design Components 9 Proximal Rod Ball Joints Tensioning Mechanism Stainless Steel Wires

10 Final Design (Proximal Rod) Immobile part of device Stainless steel 450mm long x 9.5mm diameter 3.4mm diameter center hole Required 6 holes to run wires 6 x 1.25mm diameter holes 10mm deep at each end 6 slots that extend between these holes Ball joint at tip 10

11 Final Design (Ball Joints) Allow mobility of the device Matching holes compared to proximal rod Each joint has a ball or socket on either end 11

12 Final Design (Ball Joints) Section 1 – 9 large primary joints Section 2 – 3 small primary joints Allow better range of motion Section 3 – 4 small secondary joints Section 3 controlled independently from 1 and 2 12

13 Final Design (End Control) Independent control of secondary joints allows formation of S-shape Allows device to steer across most common fractures 13

14 Final Design (Stainless Steel Wiring) Four wires in total Two 0.70mm diameter (Black) Control Primary Joints Two 0.35mm diameter (Green) Control Secondary Joints 14

15 Final Design (Tensioning Mechanism) Two C-Channels welded at 120 o angle Wires are counter wrapped onto worm gears Left worm gear controls primary joints Right worm gear controls secondary joints Intuitive Controls Proximal rod fastened using threaded collar and two nuts 15

16 General Testing Procedures 16 Mobility Forces

17 Testing Procedure (Mobility) Device was passed through femoral canal until a specific number of joints were exposed Range of motion was determined using a protractor Tested range with 4 secondary segments out of Saw Bone Tested range with 3 primary joints out of Saw Bone Tested range with 6 primary joints out of Saw Bone 17

18 Testing Procedure (Mobility) 18

19 Testing Results (Mobility) 19

20 Testing Results (Mobility) 20

21 Testing Results (Mobility) 21

22 Testing Procedure (Forces) Used broken Saw Bone to model femur Proximal end of bone clamped to table Distal end of bone mounted so that it can pivot at the knee Distal end of fracture site tied to spring scale Bone is positioned to imitate a typical misalignment Measured forces produced by device in an effort to reduce the fracture 22

23 Testing Results (Forces) 7.5lbs of force achieved at the tip 23

24 Testing Procedure (Failure) The worm gear failed at low force The worm gear should be redesigned Calculations were done to extrapolate forces of stronger gear 24

25 Testing Results (Failure) Calculated forces needed to fail 0.7 mm wire: 1144 N 1.0 mm wire: 2356 N Worm gear failure occurred at 10 Nm of moment about the knee Max moment with new wire and worm gear: 43 Nm 25

26 Results 26 ParameterDesign Requirement Actual Performance Achievement SterilizationCleanable/disposableDisposableYes DiameterUnder 12mm9.52mmYes LengthAt least 480mmOver 600mmYes SteeringSeparate tip control Yes Mobility30° bend in each direction 100° for primary 75° for secondary Yes Wire InsertionRoom for 2.5mm wire through center Bored out 3.43mmYes ForcesApply 75 Nm about knee 10 Nm about knee (43 Nm ?) No

27 Performance 27

28 Performance 28

29 Strengths 29 Failure occurs outside of patient instead of inside Sufficient mobility between joints 1.Primary deflection angle can reach 100 degree 2.Perfect S-shape can be created High durability with stainless steel wires and parts

30 Strengths 30 Ease of manipulation 1.Only two turning controllers 2.Moderate linear-turning speed 3.30 degree of clearance Cost-$2,300 1.Large saving on the operation procedure 2.Major cost is the machining spending 3.Multiple use

31 Weaknesses 31 Insufficient forces produced at tip 10 Nm produced in the test, about 15% of moment required about the knee Inefficiency on wire tying Counter-wrapping stiff wires Hard to tie tightly

32 Final Budget 32 NatureCompanyDescriptionPrice PartEagle StainlessSS Tubing$144.00 PartMcMaster CarrSS Wiring$525.16 PartMcMaster CarrSS C Channel$122.10 PartMusic WorldBrass Worm Gears $45.19 ServiceDalhousie University Rapid Prototyping $69.92 ServicePriority PrecisionMachining$1460.82 Total Cost: $2,367.19

33 Conclusions and Recommendations Design meets all requirements other than force Surgeon can apply lacking force Excellent mobility Can be applied for most common fractures Will reduce time and cost in OR Stronger worm gears More practical method of tying wires Should see a tool in the future 33

34 Questions? Group 1 Michael Lasaga Andrew Allan Riley Wilson Xiang Gong Supervisor Dr. Ted Hubbard Clients Dr. Michael Dunbar Dave Wilson Special thanks to: o Priority Precision o Orthopedic Research Group o Mark o Angus o Albert o Craig 34


Download ppt "GROUP 1: SUPERVISOR: MICHAEL LASAGADR. TED HUBBARD ANDREW ALLANCLIENTS: RILEY WILSONDR. MICHAEL DUNBAR XIANG GONGDAVE WILSON Femoral Fracture Reduction."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google