Download P10023: LVAD Implantation Training Simulator

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
is mostly 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
 Overall
proposed budget: $1,866.36
• The total had we not had items donated:
$2,072.08
 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
 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
 It
may be nice to have a 2nd Generation of
the project
• Test what we could not
 Design to meet specs that P10023 did not meet
• Add optional features such as making the heart
beat.