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

2. 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

3. 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

4. Conflict Map

5. Adaptor Design Requirements  Must fit multiple patient sizes and provide a clear view of the surgical site  Must be cost efficient  Must function adequately in the surgical procedure  Be able to be sterilized  Strong enough to hold back fat tissue

6. Ideal Device  Easy to use  Small size  Simple design- easy to manufacture  Lightweight  Biocompatible

7. Primary Objectives Design a modular adaptor for retractors that:  Keeps back adipose tissue  Is easily used by surgeon Attachment technique  Is simple to manufacture Use cheap material & Production method  Is ready for use in surgery Easily sterilized One time use

8. Preliminary Design 1  Wing-like structure ≈ 5 inches 10 inch single incision  Attachment mechanism: Hook and slot Tapering method 1-1.5 in. wide  Form by bending metal  Non-disposable  Stainless steel

9. Design 2  Disposable  Plastic material  Attaches to retractor  Multiple sizes  Requires holding

10. Design 3  Similar to cheek retractor  Plastic material  Disposable  Hands-free

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Testing Methods  Verification  Validation  Hardware Testing  Stress Testing Pro/E Mechanical Analysis  Safety Testing

15. Next Steps…

16. References  http://www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm http://www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm  http://www.innomed.net/hip_rets_mis.ht m#Anchor-APC-49575 http://www.innomed.net/hip_rets_mis.ht m#Anchor-APC-49575  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/heal th/14obese.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/heal th/14obese.html  http://www.orthosupersite.com/view.aspx ?rid=1889 http://www.orthosupersite.com/view.aspx ?rid=1889  http://www.zimmer.com/z/ctl/op/global/ac tion/1/id/8140/template/PC/navid/10427 http://www.zimmer.com/z/ctl/op/global/ac tion/1/id/8140/template/PC/navid/10427