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

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.

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 bentz@surgery.wisc.edu Advisor: Prof. Naomi Chesler Department of Biomedical Engineering chesler@engr.wisc.edu

Outline Background Problem Statement PDS Summary Proposed Designs Future Work

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

Central Pedicle

Resected Tissue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future Work Decide on adjusting mechanism Order parts Build prototype Test

References Spear, S.L. (editor). Surgery of the breast. v. 2. 2006. Bostwick, J. Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery. Mosby. St. Louis. 1983.

Questions