Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Laparoscopic Banding Device Client: Dr. Thomas M. Julian, M.D. Advisor: Mitch Tyler Leader/BSAC: Gina Stuessy BWIG: Kailey Feyereisen Communications: Anna.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Laparoscopic Banding Device Client: Dr. Thomas M. Julian, M.D. Advisor: Mitch Tyler Leader/BSAC: Gina Stuessy BWIG: Kailey Feyereisen Communications: Anna."— Presentation transcript:

1 Laparoscopic Banding Device Client: Dr. Thomas M. Julian, M.D. Advisor: Mitch Tyler Leader/BSAC: Gina Stuessy BWIG: Kailey Feyereisen Communications: Anna Moeller

2 Outline  Problem Statement  Background  Current Products  Product Design Specifications  Design Alternatives  Decision Matrix  Future Work

3 Problem Statement  Our client would like us to design a laparoscopic banding device for tubal sterilization that is less cumbersome, traumatic, and inaccurate than the device he currently uses.

4 Background  Tubal ligation is a permanent form of birth control in women  “Tubes Tied”  Eggs are prevented from reaching the uterus  Laparoscopic surgery  Procedure reversible, but difficult  One million performed a year

5 Current Products  Procedures vary Pomeroy, banding, clipping  Banding is good option because Non-electrical Easier to reverse  Product used is currently from ACMI  Falope Ring Band Tears Tube Fails to release rubber bands properly

6 Tube is drawn inside of device with pinchers Rubber band is then pushed off the end and the tube is released

7 Product Specifications  Single use  Sterile and inert  Accurate with a failure rate less than 20%  Less than $400 per device

8 Scrunchie Design  Suction grabs tube  Fingers extend and band is secured on device  Band is released when fingers close around tube

9 Scrunchie: Pros and Cons Advantages  Vacuum is less traumatic than current device  Band releases more reliably Disadvantages  Construction may be difficult which could lead to higher production costs  Tubes may still be torn

10 Pressure Cuff Design  Mechanism to grab the tube  Pressure cuff that inflates to larger volume Puts pressure to pinch tube Slides off rubber band with conical shape

11 Pressure Cuff: Pros and Cons Advantages  Gentler way of pinching tube  Simple for rubber band to come off  Fewer mechanical parts Disadvantages  High pressure in cuff could be dangerous  Cannot load multiple bands at once  New handle for surgeon to learn  Difficult to get the tube into the cuff

12  Stretched out memory metal coils  Positioned underneath fallopian tube  Released to coil around & pinch off tube Metal Coil Design

13 Metal Coil: Pros and Cons Advantages  Stress to fallopian tube is less  Design simplicity Disadvantages  Material may be less inert  Method different from current product

14 Decision Matrix ScrunchiePressure CuffMetal Coil Low Risk to Tube (1-10)8 8 9 Material Inertness (1- 10)9 9 7 Simplicity of Use (1-5) 425 Total (3-25) 2119 21

15 Future Work  Discuss with client  Finalize the design Decide internal mechanisms Decide materials  Order materials  Construct prototype  Begin preliminary testing on non- human materials

16 References  http://www.acmicorp.com/acmi/use r/display.cfm  http://ccli.org/nfp/contraception/tu bal.php  www.tubal-reversal.net  www.youtube.com

17 Questions ?


Download ppt "Laparoscopic Banding Device Client: Dr. Thomas M. Julian, M.D. Advisor: Mitch Tyler Leader/BSAC: Gina Stuessy BWIG: Kailey Feyereisen Communications: Anna."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google