1 / 14

Elise Larson, Ali Johnson, Kim Kamer, Laura Zeitler BME 201 March 6, 2009

Bronchoalveolar Lavage Trap. Elise Larson, Ali Johnson, Kim Kamer, Laura Zeitler BME 201 March 6, 2009. Client: Dr. Christopher Green Dept. of Pediatrics School of Medicine and Public Health Advisor: Prof. Brenda Ogle Dept. of Biomedical Engineering.

taini
Download Presentation

Elise Larson, Ali Johnson, Kim Kamer, Laura Zeitler BME 201 March 6, 2009

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. Bronchoalveolar Lavage Trap Elise Larson, Ali Johnson, Kim Kamer, Laura Zeitler BME 201 March 6, 2009

  2. Client: Dr. Christopher Green Dept. of Pediatrics School of Medicine and Public Health • Advisor: Prof. Brenda Ogle Dept. of Biomedical Engineering

  3. Overview • Bronchoalveolar lavage • Specimen trap problems • Client requirements • Possible prototype designs • Future work • Acknowledgments & References

  4. Bronchoalveolar Lavage (BAL) • Diagnostic procedure • Alveolar hemorrhage • Malignancies • Infections • Especially for immuno- compromised patients • Equipment/Materials • Bronchoscope • Vacuum and light sources • Saline solution • Specimen trap www.nytimes.com

  5. Problem and Current Solutions Problem: • Trap is free-hanging • Risk losing sample Current Solutions • Tape trap to scope • Nurses can hold it

  6. Design Proposal Improve the current trap design to allowmanipulation of the bronchoscope without losing the sample. Specifications • Plastic • Must hold a 35 mL sample • Volume gradations • Cost effective (<$10) • Durable (40 kPa vacuum pressure)

  7. Pros Cost effective Simple Feasible Design Option 1: Fixed Long Distance • Cons • Unlikely to be accepted • Out of view • Not necessarily universal to Light Source Vacuum, Trash Trap, Specimen Trap to Patient

  8. Pros Reusable Universal Cons Less likely to be accepted Cumbersome High prototype cost Design Option 2: Ball-and-Socket Frame

  9. Design Option 3: Ball in Cage Valve Attachment to original trap

  10. Pros Universal Likely to be implemented Not cumbersome Ball in Cage Valve • Cons • Prototype cost • Difficult to make

  11. Design Matrix Scale: 1 – 10 (1 poor, 10 excellent)

  12. Future Works • Determine design details • Order materials • Assemble prototype • Extensive testing and adaptation • Finalize prototype

  13. Acknowledgements References • Christopher Green, MD • Professor Ogle • Prakash, Udaya, Mehta, Atul, Shepherd Wes.  "The Art of Bronchoscopy." Bronchoscopy International: Art of Bronchoscopy, an Electronic On-Line Multimedia Slide Presentation http://www.bronchoscopy.org/ppt-art/AB-2A/AB-2a_files/frame.htm • Dugdale, D.C., Medoff, B. “Bronchoscopy.” Medline Plus. Nov 4, 2008. Viewed on Feb 1, 2009. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003857.htm

  14. Questions?

More Related