4.6 Article

Pediatric Airway Stent Designed to Facilitate Mucus Transport and Atraumatic Removal

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
卷 67, 期 1, 页码 177-184

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2019.2910551

关键词

Tracheobronchomalacia; airway stent

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R21HD089136]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The goal was to develop a pediatric airway stent for treating tracheobronchomalacia that could be used as an alternative to positive pressure ventilation. The design goals were for the stent to allow mucus flow and to resist migration inside the airways, while also enabling easy insertion and removal. Methods: A helical stent design, together with insertion and removal tools, is presented. A mechanics model of stent compression is derived to assist in selecting stent design parameters (pitch and wire diameter) that provide the desired amount of tracheal support, while introducing the minimal amount of foreign material into the airway. Worst-case airway area reduction with stent support is investigated experimentally using a pressurized tracheal phantom matched to porcine tracheal tissue properties. The stent design is then evaluated in a porcine in vivo experiment. Results: Phantom testing validated the mechanics model of stent compression. In vivo testing demonstrated that the stent was well tolerated by the animal. Since the helical design covers only a small portion of the epithelium, mucus transport through the stented region was minimally impeded. Furthermore, the screw-like stent resisted migration, while also providing for atraumatic removal through the use of an unscrewing motion during removal. Conclusion: The proposed stent design and tools represent a promising approach to prevent airway collapse in children with tracheobronchomalacia. Significance: The proposed technology overcomes the limitations of existing airway stents and may provide an alternative to maintaining children on a ventilator.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据