Dennis Prentice – Project Manager (ME) Anthony Culotta – Mechanical Engineer Jason Nichols – Mechanical Engineer Belinda Segui – Electrical Engineer Sponsor/Advisor: Dr. Steven Day Advisor: Dr. Rick Lux On Site Customers: Dr. Bill Hallinan and Dr. Todd Massey

 A working replica of a human thoracic cavity to use as a surgical training device for implanting a left ventricular assist device (LVAD)  Market: Surgeons training for this surgery Companies such as Thoratec, which create LVADs and may desire to provide training services

 Pressurized Heart  Surgical Field/Confined Workspace  Cleanable  Replaceable Connected Tubing to Heart  Ease of Storage  Durability  Quick Setup and Teardown  Match Average Patient

 Fluid/Control Subsystem  to provide pressurization and proper flow rate to the heart  Reservoirs and material selection provide the ability for it to be cleaned  Ribs/Frame  Dimension of trainer matches that of an average patient  Organs/Organ Tray  Incorporation of lungs, diaphragm, abdominal pocket and skin provide the appropriate surgical field and confined space

 Control System Labview Program and DAQ were tested with simulated inputs Test was successful  Pressure Sensor was tested to find successful calibration  Pump was tested to confirm that it provides the proper pressure and flow rate needed This was barely achieved

 The entire system was tested and successful integration was seen.  A real heart was not obtained, so tests requiring one were not able to be performed. Quick heart-to-tubing connector verification Actual heart pressurization/incorporation into system Quick setup and teardown verification

Project Status: Plan vs Execution  Project is on schedule Risks mitigated:  All material arrived on time  Machined and built in timely fashion  LabView successfully programmed  Demo completed on time Everything that could be tested in a timely fashion was  Still need to show to Bill Hallinan and Dr Massey

$$ Budget $$  Overall proposed budget: $1, The total had we not had items donated: $2,  We spent a little over our proposed budget due to not accounting for the shipping and handling costs Actually have a few extra materials/supplies

Overall Evaluation:  MSD II went much smoother than MSD I Followed schedule more closely Followed Plans and design almost to the letter  Met most specifications All important needs met  Test plans executed for major specs, minus ones requiring an actual heart  Focused more on getting trainer built rather than testing small components for verification

From Here?  It may be nice to have a 2 nd Generation of the project Test what we could not  Design to meet specs that P10023 did not meet