Trey DeLong Lacey Gorochow Brian Rappa Adam Vandergriff Sandra Wadeer Advisor: Dave Martinez VP of Sales at Zimmer, Inc.

Problem Statement  Current tissue retractors are narrow, multiple retractors are required especially in obese patients NY times reports 34% adults are obese +Surgical Techs($20.00/hr*2-4hr/surgery*200k surgeries/year) Time of surgery increases as well  Previous team designed an adjustable retractor Complex and impractical for industrial production Prototype could not be used in surgery

Mechanism & Consequences  Mechanism causing the problem Physical properties of adipose tissue allow it to wrap around narrow retractors  Consequences of unresolved problem Poor surgical field of vision Increase cost for additional materials and personnel

Surgery Experience Fat tissue getting in the way 4-5 in (6 in in bigger patient) 3 in wide

Dr. Christie’s Perspective  Functions of retractor: Pull on incision Keep tissue from falling into surgical window  Disposability Not “green”  Ideal Device: Robust Simple Movable window

Design Requirements & Objectives  Keep back adipose tissue  Fit multiple patient sizes and provide a clear view of the surgical site  Must be cost efficient Simple manufacturing cheap material  Ready for use in surgery Easily attached Easily sterilized  Strong enough to hold back fat tissue

Preliminary Design  Similar to cheek retractor  Plastic material  Disposable  Hands-free  Does not allow for mobile window  No relaxation on one side (non-movable window)

Preliminary Design #1 4 in 1 in sliding room Guide Rails Flap(similar to cheek retractor)

Preliminary Design #2 3 guide rails inside this part

Preliminary Design #3 Retractor Attaching Part Guides Rails

Preliminary Design #3

Goals  Reduce total hip replacement surgery cost Less personnel in the operating room Less retractors needed for surgery  Increase vision and work room for the surgeon Increase efficiency of the surgery Reduce surgery time

Performance Metrics  Retractor system work on 95% of patients Different size attachments for non-disposable and disposable design  Costs Keep production costs minimal ○ Mass production ○ Readily machined Predicted to be ~$300 for retractor and attachments (non-disposable) Disposable: $1-$10 per device

System and Environment  Role in surgery Increase view of region and allows access  Why its beneficial to the surgeon Reduce people near patient Reduce number of retractors Make surgery easier

Testing Methods  Verification Ensuring all parts of the device function together properly Detect errors at all stages of development  Validation Determine whether device is easily sterilized  Hardware Testing Use of mechanical equipment to test strength of device  Stress Testing Pro/E Mechanical Analysis  Safety Testing Take into surgery and access ability to use device

Next Steps…

References   Anchor-APC Anchor-APC  14obese.html 14obese.html  d= d=1889  n/1/id/8140/template/PC/navid/ n/1/id/8140/template/PC/navid/10427