1. Retractor for Breast Surgery
Clients: Dr. Piasecki ~ Plastic Surgery UW Hospital
Dr. Gutowski ~ Plastic Surgery UW Hospital
Advisor: Prof. Murphy ~ Biomedical Engineering Department UW-Madison
Christopher Westphal – Leader
Sarajane Stevens – Communicator
Arinne Lyman – BSAC
Eric Bader – BWIG

2. Overview Problem Statement Design Constraints Background Designs
Procedure
Current Device
Light/Suction
Designs
Future Work

3. Problem Statement
Our goal is to develop a breast retractor that will allow the doctor to create a cavity in the breast through a small inframammary incision. The retractor must be self-standing, contain a light source that emits light in all directions, and create suction in various places of the breast cavity.

4. Design Constraints Self-standing Proper light and suction distribution
Fit through a 3-4 cm incision
Sustain a maximum force of 60 lb
Non-porous material
Withstand autoclaving temps (121°C)

5. Background – Procedure
3 cm incision
Retractor holds tissue up
Form cavity with electrocautery tool
Implant placed above or below pectoralis
Closed with dissolvable sutures

6. Current Device ASSI® Breast Retractors Neon Breast Retractor
Fiber optic light source
Suction source
“C” or “L” shape
Neon Breast Retractor
Light reflective polymers
Distributed light
Lightweight
Insulated
One-time use

7. Background – Light/Suction
Light Sources
Fiber optics
Light reflective polymers
LightMat™
Suction Sources
Standard hospital wall mount
mmHg

8. Design 1 – The Raisin’ Squeeze handle Actuates ratchet mechanism
Quick release

9. Design 1 – The Raisin’ Pros Cons Wide base Easily adjusted
Minimally obstructed field of view
Cons
No pivot
Bulky handle
Difficult to clean

10. Design 2 – The Spreader Twist knob Pivot point at base
Large angle spread

11. Design 2 – The Spreader Pros Cons Dog-legged for minimal obstruction
Light-weight
Pivot creates taller cavity
Cons
Hard to adjust
May exert pressure on patient
Non-discrete step increments

12. Design 3 – The Jack
Pull top bar back
Lift up
Slide forward

13. Design 3 – The Jack Pros Cons Used with various procedures
Simple design
Easy to manufacture/clean
Cons
Instability
No pivot point
Obstructs field of view

14. Design Matrix Criteria Raisin’ Spreader Jack 14 9 8 5 11 13 2 3 10 6 7
Self-Standing [15] 14 9
Pivot [10] 8 5
Clear Field of View [15] 11 13 2
Force [10] 3
Ease of Use [15] 10
Cost [10] 6 7
Safety [10] 4
Manufacturing [15]
Total [100] 62 61 48

15. Future Work Determine method of construction Create prototype
Test for sufficient force, light, and suction distribution
Revise design if needed

16. References http://medevoice.co.uk/sheffmed/January05.php

17. Questions