Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
Similaire à Supplemental Exoskeleton Project
Similaire à Supplemental Exoskeleton Project (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Supplemental Exoskeleton Project
- 1. Supplemental Exoskeleton Project Lisa DeConti, Derek Dodge, Jerry Merkel, Dan Evans and Nick Vernadakis
- 2. The Objective Address common problems with current cast design Create cost-effective, eco-friendly, comfortable cast Come up with three designs, choose best one
- 3. Problems with Current Design: The Upper Extremity Orthopedic Cast Application Materials Exposure to water Breathability/Unexposure Safe removal Restricting and uncomfortable
- 4. Problems with Current Design: The Upper Extremity Orthopedic Cast The upper extremity orthopedic cast consists of a shell encasing, often times made from plaster, and a soft inner padding, usually cotton, used to stabilize and hold anatomical structures, often broken bones in the lower arm such as the radius or ulna. ● Modern casts have many problems, however, and designs have been similar since the Egyptians use of splints 3000 BC ● Knitted fiberglass bandages saturated with polyurethane are used. These shells are lighter and dry much faster than plaster bandages. However, plaster can be more easily molded to make a snug and therefore more comfortable fit. Plaster is also much smoother and does not snag clothing or abrade the skin.
- 5. Problems with Current Design: The Upper Extremity Orthopedic Cast It seems that one of the most efficient ways of cast preparations is using gypsum, heated, and ground to a fine powder by refining it. When water is added, the soluble form of calcium sulfate returns to the relatively insoluble shape, and heat is produced as a product. 2 (CaSO4·½ H2O) + 3 H2O → 2 (CaSO4.2H2O) + Heat This method is known as the plaster of Paris method, which has been an outdated source of casting ever since. Removal of the traditional cast is a hastle. Removal of the cast entails destroying the cast, which wastes materials and is not the most cost- efficient. The process is noisy, making use of a special oscillating saw that can easily cut hard cast material but has difficulty cutting cast padding.
- 6. Design One Mouth Guard Inspired Design Heat moldable Internal resistor to aid in heating Few generic sizes to cater to all people Use of Ultrasound to maximize blood flow to accelerate healing
- 7. Design One Pros and Cons Pros: Reusable Custom Fit, More Comfortable Faster Healing Waterproof, durable Easy Removal Cost Effective (reusable) Cons: Not as protective Initial costs are higher
- 8. Design Two Dissolvable Arm Cast Design Made from Hydrophobic Polymer Will be removed with an alcohol or liquid hydrocarbon Dissolved polymer can be extracted from solvent and reused
- 9. Design Two Pros and Cons Pros: Reusable material Cheap removal equipment Waterproof Con: Having to rebuild the cast from raw materials to reuse it Difficult application People with sensitive skin and allergies may have trouble with it Cannot be around certain chemical solutions
- 10. Design Three Air Compression Design Large Plastic Frame Air bags lining the inside of the frame that are blown up to fit the patient’s arm Doctor will have a lock to the outside of the cast, so only the doctor can deflate it Similar to a blood pressure arm cuff
- 11. Design Three Pros and Cons Pros: Easy application and removal Reusable, can be set to fit patient perfectly No special equipment required Inexpensive materials Cons: Not as structurally supportive Large, bulky Breakable, easy to deflate
- 12. Final Design Decision We chose the first design because: It was the most cost efficient, after start of fees it is reusable and durable It would be the most comfortable for the patient as well as the most supportive Decreased healing time Most convenient for everyday life