BSAC-Andrew BertramCommunicator-Graham Bousley

Team Leader-Hallie KreitlowBWIG-Sarah Switalski

Advisor: Paul ThompsonClient: Dr. Tova Ablove

Pelvic organ prolapse background Problem statement Design specifications Current designs Design alternatives Design matrix Future work

Pelvic Prolapse◦ Pelvic floor muscles become weak and cannot

support pelvic organs Causes

◦ Pregnancy Fifty percent

◦ Aging 50+ years

◦ Obesity

Site specific staging system Stages Central vs.

lateral Different types

of prolapse:◦ Cystocele◦ Rectocele◦ Uterine◦ Vault

Design and fabricate a dynamic model to teach the pelvic organ prolapse quantification exam (POP-Q).

Must contain bladder, uterus, rectum, vagina, and support systems

Must simulate the different stages and central and lateral prolapse

Dimensions to scale Easy to manipulate and reset Should not include labels (teaching model) Allotted budget: ~$1,000

Static anatomical models Dynamic model

◦ Inverted Santa Claus hat Wooden frame Buttons

External structure◦ Pelvis◦ Physical landmarks

Urethra Rectum

Vagina◦ Colored segments for POP-Q measurement sites◦ Silicone◦ Anchoring system◦ Diameter~9cm◦ Length~30cm

Drop objects down chutes in order to apply pressure to the walls of the vagina

Disadvantages◦ Upright Orientation◦ Difficult to reset

Side ViewVertically Oriented

BladderRectum

Cervix

Vagina

Balloons◦ Inflate with calibrated

syringes◦ One at each POP-Q

measurement site Rods

◦ Cervix◦ Lateral prolapse

Side View

Rods control objects to press on anterior and posterior walls

Side View

Bladder

Rectum

VaginaCervix

Criteria Weight

Rod System Weighted System

Calibrated Pressure/Rod

System

Feasibility 40 30 10 20

Accuracy 20 15 5 15

Ease of Use 20 15 5 20

Durability 15 15 10 5

Cost 5 5 3 2

Safety Y/N Y Y Y

Totals 100 80 33 62

Test materials Finalize dimensions Assemble model Test and calibrate model

Beus, Tamara. “Pelvic Organ Prolapse.” Women’s Health. 2003. Women’s Health. www.womenshealthlondon.org.uk

Flesh, MD, George. “Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System.” UpToDate. May 2008. 10 Sep. 2008. www.uptodate.com

Geiss et. al. “A simple teaching tool for training the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system.” International Urogynecology Journal. 2007. Volume 18: 1003-1005

Herschorn, MD, FRCSC, Sender. “Female Pelvic Floor Anatomy: The Pelvic Floor, Supporting Structures, and Pelvic Organs.” MedReviews. 2004. 18Sep 2008. www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov

Bard. www.bardurological.com/POP-Q

Questions?

Pros◦ More visually accurate◦ Calibrated Pressure System

Cons◦ Less Durable◦ Harder to scale up◦ More expensive◦ Harder to find materials

Pros◦ Not visually accurate◦ More realistic measurements for POP-Q Exam

(variability) Cons

◦ Difficult to calibrate◦ Difficult to reset◦ Not as durable◦ Cannot simulate all types of prolapse

Pros◦ Simpler to fabricate and use◦ Cheaper◦ Movements are easily controlled◦ Easy to scale up