1. Breast Pedicle Protector
Kuya Takami, Joseph Yuen,
Nathan Werbeckes, Laura Bagley
BME 201
March 9, 2007

2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STATEMENT
All information provided by individuals or Design Project Groups during this or subsequent presentations is the property of the researchers presenting this information. In addition, any information provided herein may include results sponsored by and provided to a member company of the Biomedical Engineering Student Design Consortium (SDC).
Anyone to whom this information is disclosed:
1) Agrees to use this information solely for purposes related to this review;
2) Agrees not to use this information for any other purpose unless given written approval in advance by the Project Group, the Client / SDC, and the Advisor.
3) Agrees to keep this information in confidence until the relevant parties listed in Part (2) above have evaluated and secured any applicable intellectual property rights in this information.
4) Continued attendance at this presentation constitutes compliance with this agreement.

3. Dr. Michael Bentz, MD, FAAP, FACS Dept. of Surgery UW Medical School
Client:
Dr. Michael Bentz, MD, FAAP, FACS
Dept. of Surgery
UW Medical School
Advisor:
Prof. Naomi Chesler
Department of Biomedical Engineering

4. Outline Background Problem Statement PDS Summary Proposed Designs
Future Work

5. Breast Reduction Surgery
Not cosmetic surgery
Shoulder grooving
Poor posture
Neck and back pain
Brachial plexus compression
Inferior pedicle technique

6. Central Pedicle

7. Resected Tissue

8. Motivation Reduce operation time by 30 minutes
Procedure can be done by one person
Increase surgical precision
Protect areolar pedicle
Supplies blood and nerves to nipple
Preserves lactation ability
Preserves sensation in nipple

9. Problem Statement Purpose of device Hold breast in place
Protect pedicle
Guide surgeon’s cuts
Provide an edge to cut along

10. PDS Summary Primary Requirements Secondary Requirements
Adjustable width
Accurate within 5-10 mm
Operable by one person
10 cm spike length
Secondary Requirements
One material
Adjustable length

11. No moving parts Multiple devices Widths range 5-10 cm Length 8 cm
Spikes less than 1 cm apart

12. Pros and Cons Cons Pros Requires more storage space Simple design
More devices to keep track of
Less accuracy
Pros
Simple design
Simple construction
Won’t move during surgery

13. Snap-on Pieces Width 5-10 cm Length 6-12 cm
Screw mechanism
Length 6-12 cm
Snap-on pieces
Spikes less than 1 cm apart

14. Pros and Cons Pros Cons Fully adjustable Only one device needed
Greater accuracy
Cons
Complicated construction
Greater cost
More parts to keep track of

15. Push-button Mechanism
Width 5-10 cm
Push-button mechanism
Locks with springs and notches
Length 6-12 cm
Screw mechanism
Spikes less than 1 cm apart

16. Pros and Cons Pros Cons Adjusts to patient Only one device needed
Simple design
Cons
Mechanism more complicated than no moving parts

17. Design Matrix 1 4 5 3 2.85 3.75 3.9 (Scale 1-5) Weight Not adjustable
Snap-on pieces
Push-button
Ability to adjust to patient
0.4 1 4 5
Ease of use
0.25 3
Ease of Construction
0.2
Ease of sterilization
0.1
Cost
0.05
Total
1.00
2.85
3.75
3.9

18. Future Work Decide on adjusting mechanism Order parts Build prototype
Test

19. References Spear, S.L. (editor). Surgery of the breast. v. 2. 2006.
Bostwick, J. Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery. Mosby. St. Louis

20. Questions