Project Updates
The needs statement and scope of the project remain unchanged since the Preliminary Report and continue to focus on creating a vascular phantom for simulating the delivery of nanoparticle infusions. However, there were changes made to the design specifications based on receiving specified product requirements during discussions with our client. The biggest changes were that more specific metrics were added, pressure sensor was removed, and software/firmware was added. The design specifications were compiled into a new table, which includes the specification description and the accompanying metric. The updated specifications can be seen in Table 1 of Appendix A, which were divided into the following categories: Sensing Design Specifications (SDS), Chassis Design Specifications (CDS), Pumping Design Specifications (PDS), Firmware/Software Design Specifications (FSDS), and General Design Specifications (GDS). There also remain no changes to the design schedule or team responsibilities.
Design Alternatives
When deciding on the technology or approach to best satisfy UN&UP’s requirements for a vascular phantom, multiple existing and original designs were considered. The existing designs were from the literature and had to encapsulate at least two of the client’s needs to be in the Pugh chart. The original designs were products of conceptualizations for varying approaches to creating different phantoms. The designs of entire phantoms were analyzed for viability in the Pugh chart due to the nature of the unique vascular phantom desired by UN&UP. In doing so, the features exclusive to UN&UP’s requirements became clear and were further analyzed for viability in separate Pugh charts.
The analysis criterion described in Table 1 was created to assess each design alternative for feasibility and accuracy. The criteria for the Pugh charts were derived from the design specifications. The corresponding number assigned to each criteria were used for the analysis of the following Pugh chart.
| Table 1: Description of Criteria used to form the Pugh Chart of Potential Designs. | ||
| # | Criteria | Description |
| C1 | Infusion Monitoring | Appropriate/accurate system to digitally monitor nanoparticles |
| C2 | Temperature Sensor | Accurate, waterproof, and compatible with the design |
| C3 | Waterproof | Fluid-tight ports and protection for electrical components |
| C4 | Observation Window | Visible nanoparticle infusion in the tubing system |
| C5 | Simulation of Blood | Transparent solution with a viscosity of 4 cP |
| C6 | Heating System | Safe and reliable heating system |
| C7 | Pumping System | Pump to replicate arterial and venous pressure |
| C8 | Vessel System | Transparent and accommodating of the required diameters |
| C9 | Catheters | Ports for multiple styles of catheters |
| C10 | Open-Loop System | Vascular phantom is a single-pass flow system |
| C11 | Budget | Price of the overall design is feasible |
| C12 | Timeline | Design can be completed by the due date |
The below Pugh chart includes the analysis for nine designs of which all are comprised of different components used to create a vascular phantom. The criteria met by the least number of designs were considered further in separate Pugh charts to analyze specific and more viable design alternatives not included in Table 2. Furthermore, high-scoring design alternatives in Table 2 with desirable qualities were also analyzed to a greater extent in the later Pugh charts corresponding to the appropriate criteria.
| Table 2: Pugh Chart of Potential Designs. | ||||||||||
| Criteria | Weight | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D5 | D6 | D7 | D8 | D9 |
| C1 | 8 | 83 | 10 | 64 | 22 | 91 | 10 | 57 | 19 | 0 |
| C2 | 3 | 0 | 79 | 63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 71 |
| C3 | 10 | 12 | 6 | 38 | 47 | 0 | 84 | 86 | 81 | 81 |
| C4 | 7 | 0 | 67 | 65 | 10 | 60 | 90 | 0 | 70 | 80 |
| C5 | 5 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 37 | 0 | 90 | 4 | 41 | 100 |
| C6 | 6 | 45 | 50 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 83 |
| C7 | 9 | 35 | 44 | 44 | 15 | 0 | 69 | 13 | 40 | 40 |
| C8 | 9 | 60 | 30 | 21 | 24 | 73 | 81 | 49 | 70 | 30 |
| C9 | 4 | 0 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 28 | 75 | 55 | 0 | 0 |
| C10 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 40 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| C11 | 5 | 45 | 79 | 18 | 0 | 33 | 0 | 14 | 72 | 65 |
| C12 | 10 | 72 | 60 | 13 | 0 | 44 | 0 | 38 | 70 | 70 |
| Weight Total | 310 | 326 | 298 | 159 | 288 | 365 | 261 | 362 | 424 |
The criteria were defined by importance using a scale ranging from 1 to 10. The criteria that held a higher weight, or importance, were closer to the number 10. Similarly, the more a design alternative fit the criteria, the closer to 100 the design alternative’s score was. The weight total was the summation of each design alternative’s score divided by its respective weight. The higher the weighted total of each design, the more viable the design remains in reference to meeting the criteria.
The first design was from an initial brainstorming session and incorporated the use of resin 3D printing to mount a monitoring system and create two vessels of different diameters within a cube of nearly 100% infill. This scored highly for customizable vessels, but there was no observation window due to how the resin was the housing body and optical clarity would decrease with a thicker layer of resin over the vessels. There were also no temperature sensors because the temperature relied on the set temperature of the heating system. It also did not satisfy the criteria of being waterproof for lack of fluid-tight ports near the electronics. Lastly, it was designed as a closed-loop system ultimately leading to a lower weight total.
Design 2 included a closed-loop tubing system that used a magnetic filtration system to remove the nanoparticles at the end of the run before the next. This filtration system was brainstormed by the group as a way to remove the nanoparticles in the event a closed-loop system is preferred. However, it was determined that the client would prefer an open-loop system, so this idea was ultimately scrapped, thus, it scored a zero in the open-loop system criteria. The design did contain a see-through housing unit for viewing the nanoparticle infusion delivery, but it did not contain a method for monitoring infusion delivery; therefore, it received a low score in the appropriate criteria. For this design, the team attempted to brainstorm a prototype in which all the components were housed in a single unit. While this would have been a compact and easily portable prototype, it was ultimately determined that the electrical safety features were more important than the portability. The risk of having the electric components near liquid would not pay off. Overall, Design 2 had a weight total of 326.
Design 3 was an initial sketch of the entire phantom as a singular unit. The system utilized a closed loop for the fluids and acted similar to that of a compression chamber. This allowed the vessels to be altered into different sizes with varying pressures in a smaller system. Although this led to a low score for the pumping and loop system criterion, the system had transparent windows to be observed at multiple angles. Another upside included a small monitor that would notify the user of altered temperature and flow rate. Lastly, the system was too prone to water damage as the electronics and the liquids were in the same unit, making the design undesirable. The low weight total was largely due to the difficulties in feasible producibility before the due date while staying under budget.
The lowest scoring design was Design 4, therefore, the majority of the components from that design were not be considered in the final design. Overall, their imaging procedure and phantom production were far beyond the scope of what is feasible and applicable to the final design. Next, Design 5 scored high for the monitoring and the vessel system criteria in the Pugh chart. Both systems do not directly apply to UN&UP’s desired phantom, but simple design modifications could be made utilizing Design 5’s strategy to formulate a design alternative for the appropriate criteria. The monitoring system of Design 5 is a camera mounted over the phantom acting as a neural network calculating commands for guidewire manipulation [1]. By removing their imaging system and utilizing how they mounted the camera, an appropriate monitoring system could be set up the same way. Their vessel system was a branched vascular tree 3D printed using Stereolithography. With the diameter of the vasculature increased, it could be used as a feasible design alternative.
Similar to Design 5, Design 6 included a high-scoring design alternative for the vessel system criteria to be utilized as a basis for a design alternative in a separate Pugh chart. Design 6 mimicked the aorta by using a commercially available flexible silicone model [2]. There was no mention of trouble that they encountered with flexible silicone in the article. Design 6 also had the highest score for catheters because a catheterization system was used in their model to invasively measure pressures along the aortic phantom. This is a solid foundation idea for the final solution, but redesigning of the components would need to be done to apply to UN&UP’s requirements.
Design 7 was created to conduct a clot retrieving procedure in the case of an ischemic stroke [3]. The vessel system was produced using multiple CAD software that allowed for precise patient-specific vascular testing models. While Design 7 was not fully used for planning the final design due to expensive 3D printing procedures, it demonstrated how the complexity of producing 3D printed phantoms increases as heavily branched vasculature increases. Furthermore, Design 7 used rabbit blood exhibiting a comparison to a blood mimicking solution, but this also lowed the criteria score. Even though this design demonstrated a useful clot removal procedure with a catheter, the lack of criteria led to a low weight total.
With a high weight total for Design 8 due to unique procedures, it proposed interesting ideas that were considered, while only a few applied. By the design utilizing a clear container to enclose the vessel system and filling the container with water to simulate intraabdominal pressure, the observation and waterproof criteria received a high score [4]. On the other hand, the vessels were mimicked accurately but they were not transparent and remain far beyond the budget.
Design 9 had the highest weight total of all the designs in the Pugh chart. One component that Design 9 excelled in was the blood simulation criteria. An accurate ratio of glycerol to water mixture was produced that led to the desired viscosity of blood [5]. Furthermore, the system had a heating system for the blood solution maintained at body temperature to simulate consistency with the human body. The design also met other criteria such as including temperature sensors, an observation window, nearly transparent vessels, and a pump system. Although the design lacked a monitoring system, catheter ports, and an open-loop system, the overall components of Design 9 were considered to be feasible design alternatives for the proposed solution.
Required Components
Out of the twelve listed criteria in Table 1 and the Pugh chart of potential designs, a few can be eliminated from further analysis in separate Pugh charts based on the explicit requirement needs specified by the client. This includes the overall price of the solution and the due date as they are non-negotiable. The monitoring system for the nanoparticle infusion delivery should be a webcam that connects to a computer. It is necessary for the simulated blood of the vascular phantom to be clear to track the nanoparticles and have a viscosity of 4 cP to mimic that of actual blood viscosity. UN&UP made it clear that a glycerol water solution will be sufficient. Regarding the criteria to include a pump to replicate arterial and venous pressure, a peristaltic pump should be used over other types of variable pumps. The vascular phantom is also required to be a single-pass flow system. A closed-loop system would have little use to the client without a special filter, or a way to remove the nanoparticles such that they do not mix with subsequent infusions. Lastly, the observation window will be taken into account with the vessel system.
Design Analysis
From Table 2’s Pugh chart of potential designs, some criteria had a variety of high scoring designs alternatives that when modified could be new design alternatives for a single system with a more specific set of criteria. On the other hand, some criteria were not met by any design alternatives, and further analysis needed to be conducted. The criteria included the vessel and heating systems, and the temperature sensors.
Vessel System
A Pugh chart for the vessel system seen in Table 3 follows the same structure as that of the previous Pugh chart for potential designs.
| Table 3: Pugh Chart for the Vessel System. | ||||||
| Criteria | Weight | SLA | Silicone | Mold | Glass | Gel |
| Price | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 6 |
| Repeatability | 4 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 |
| Durable | 5 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 7 |
| Accurate Sizing | 9 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 3 | 8 |
| Accurate Replica | 6 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 9 |
| Transparent | 10 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 7 |
| Compatible | 7 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 7 |
| Producibility | 8 | 7 | 9 | 3 | 9 | 3 |
| Weight Total | 36 | 36.8 | 34 | 28.8 | 36.4 |
The vessel system for the vascular phantom will first need to have a feasible price range that considers multiple options due to how some phantoms can range up to thousands of dollars [6]. It will then need to tolerate repeated trials of nanoparticle infusions and be durable to withstand fluid flow for approximately thirty minutes or more as per the request of the client. The vessel system will also need to mimic the carotid artery and median cubic/cephalic vein vessel diameters. The average carotid artery diameter is 6 mm as the common lumen diameter ranges from 4.3 mm to 7.7 mm [7]. The median cubic/cephalic vein diameter average is much smaller at roughly 2 mm, where it is typical for the lumen diameter to range from 0.7 mm to 3 mm [8]. Along with accurate sizing, it would be ideal for the phantom vessels to be an accurate replica and have similar mechanical properties to actual blood vessels. The vessel system must then need to be optically transparent to expose the flow of nanoparticles and be compatible with the other components in the design such that the flow continues. It would be ideal if the refractive index of the phantom material and the inner fluid match. Lastly, if the vessels must be modeled, printed, or molded versus purchasing structures already like that of a tube, it must be feasible to do so accurately.
Due to how UN&UP currently has accessible stereolithography (SLA) or resin 3D printers, this would be a viable option to customize an accurately sized vessel system that is compatible with the existing components. Currently, they have clear resin cartridges that would produce rigid vessels. The optical clarity after curing the resin is cloudy, so a clear coat of paint would need to be added to improve the transparency. Due to the small diameter of the required vessels, getting an even layer in the inner walls could be difficult. Since the vessels would be rigid, it is not the best form of mimicking the mechanical properties of actual blood vessels. On the other hand, 3D printing using an elastic material would likely be the easiest method to create a custom tissue-mimicking phantom [6]. Doing so would alter the weight of the score because both elastic and flexible 1L resin cartridges are $200 apiece. It is also unknown how transparent the material is, but typically the final piece is cloudy, and adding a clear coat of paint likely does not apply.
In Table 3, silicone refers to silicone tubes. Silicone is commonly used in the literature to mimic blood vessels such as in Design 6, 8, and 9 [2, 4, 5]. They would be compatible with the other components of the phantom and, if purchased, would need no further assembly to create. The biggest issue is finding silicone tubes fit for the transfer of fluids with the appropriate inner diameters that are transparent, and also financially feasible. Where there is accurate sizing, there is little transparency, and where there is both, it is beyond the price range, such the mentioned vessels are from Design 6, 8, and 9. The silicone tubes ideally would have a wall thickness close to that of the actual vessels to better satisfy the need for similar mechanical properties. Wall thickness is inversely proportional to compliance; therefore, precise wall thickness will likely enable successful experimental results [9]. It follows that this also increases the price range for the silicone tubes to meet the criteria.
The third design alternative was a silicone mold to create what is known in the literature as a flow phantom; they are most commonly used in applications utilizing various imaging modalities. Multiple studies have created phantoms by embedding a 3D print in silicone with subsequent removal to yield the desired geometry [6, 11, 12, 13]. This produces a wall-less phantom, consisting of a tissue-mimicking block with a hollow lumen, as opposed to a walled phantom that has thin, variable material thickness for the vessels [3, 9, 14, 15, 16]. When solely using silicone to create either type of flow phantom, the mechanical properties are fair. To improve them requires the use of different silicone compounds [10]. Otherwise, further materials need to be included, such as a coating of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) in the inner walls to mimic a compliant phantom [11]. Overall, this is a higher-priced method due to the cost of silicone being upwards of $180 for one of the most referenced silicones in the literature, Sylgard 184 [12]. The molding process is complicated to create an accurate product and when attempting to alter the mechanical properties with varying materials, the cost also increases. Due to complexity and price, this design alternative would not be feasible without proper protocols and budgeting for the final solution.
Glass tubes were considered due to how they would be a stable option in the housing body and because they have a high refractive index, similar to that of glycerin, to visualize the flow of nanoparticles. Otherwise, they are not commonly cited in the literature for the use of mimicking blood vessels. It has been mentioned that glass flow capillaries in an optical phantom were used to mimic the retina and its superficial vasculature [17]. Similar applications to the vessel system would likely not yield appropriate experimental results due to how glass does not have similar mechanical properties to actual vasculature. In addition, finding the correct sizing of small glass tubes proves to be a difficulty, especially when taking the length into account. Altering the length of glass tubes would require precision and special tools.
The fifth design alternative was a tissue-mimicking gel mold phantom with considerable optical clarity. This is a high-scoring design because of how inexpensive the tissue-mimicking material is and how well it can mimic that of actual blood vessels. Overall, the deciding factors on why not to choose this method boiled down to prolonged producibility with expected trial and error to get an accurate model, additional purchases to form the mold, and lastly, it was originally created for applications to quantify flow using different imaging modalities [6].
Due to how multiple design alternatives offer an accurate solution at a higher price, it is best to experiment with purchasing and testing the cheaper options first, such as low-quality silicone tubes and 3D printing with clear rigid resin. To house the tubes and printed vessels, a housing system comprised of six clear acrylic panels will be created similar to the designs in Design 6, 8, and 9 [2, 4, 5]. From there, the findings will be presented to our client and forward steps towards a more expensive option will be taken, if necessary, which is certain to satisfy the requirements UN&UP is looking for.
Temperature Sensor
Since there were only a few vascular phantoms that included a heating system, only a few included temperature sensors. The few design options from Table 2 that included temperature sensors were weighed alongside other researched components and were analyzed in Table 4 consisting of the Pugh chart.
| Table 4: Pugh Chart for the Temperature Sensor. | |||||
| Criteria | Weight | DS18B20 Probe | Testo Digital | Thomas Logging | UMLIFE Controller |
| Price | 8 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 10 |
| Waterproof | 10 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 5 |
| Accuracy | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 4 |
| Complexity | 5 | 3 | 8 | 7 | 6 |
| Data Collection | 5 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 2 |
| Multiple Probes | 6 | 9 | 0 | 6 | 2 |
| Weight Total | 42 | 27 | 40 | 29 |
Two heating sensors will be included in the vascular phantom design. One sensor will be designated to the reservoir of the blood solution before it is pumped through the simulated arteries and veins. The other sensor will be upstream of the phantom window at the end of the system. Component 1, which is a DS18B20 temperature probe, allows for connecting multiple temperature probes to a microprocessor to allow for the logging of the temperatures. It is very inexpensive compared to some other options at $9, meaning it may not be as precise, but it is the most viable temperature sensor option. Component 3, the Thomas Scientific Data Logging Thermometer, ranked the second-highest due to its precision and extensive data logging capabilities. It also has the option to hook up multiple temperature probes; however, due to the higher price (around $350 depending on the model), this component option does not rank as high. Components 2 and 4 both did not rank very high for the same reason—there is no data collection so there would be no record kept of temperatures. They also do not allow for the connection of multiple probes, so two units would have to be purchased to keep track of the separate region’s temperatures.
Heating System
Most of the vascular phantom designs did not have a heating system in place. Table 5 analyzes the different design alternatives for potentially viable components for the system.
| Table 5: Pugh Chart for the Heating System. | |||||
| Criteria | Weight | Sous Vide | Aquarium Heater | Immersion Heater | Electric Heater |
| Price | 8 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 2 |
| Safety | 10 | 10 | 10 | 6 | 10 |
| Setup Complexity | 5 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 2 |
| Ease of Use | 6 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 9 |
| Range | 7 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 10 |
| Temperature Fixation | 9 | 10 | 6 | 1 | 9 |
| Weight Total | 35 | 34 | 29 | 33 |
Each design alternative for the heating system analyzed in the Pugh chart will be placed within the reservoir to directly bring the glycerol water solution to 37°C. The first design alternative was a sous vide machine. They are commonly used in cooking and excel in warming the solution at a consistent temperature. Another desirable feature is the accessibility of temperature reading as it is located directly on top of the device, while the heating element is on the bottom. This is convenient as it is able to combine both the temperature sensor and the heating system for the reservoir. The biggest concern with the sous vide machine is the temperature range. Since it is meant for cooking at high temperatures, it is not certain if the machine can produce a low enough set temperature around 37°C. It is also notable to consider the selling price of the product is around $100 and is not cheap.
The next design alternative is the aquarium water heater, and it has similarities to the sous vide machine. The aquarium heater can set temperature while being able to give a direct reading of the temperature of the reservoir. It also has various power settings, so for a larger reservoir, a more powerful heater setting can be used. One drawback of the aquarium heater is the temperate range with the maximum temperatures for most aquarium heaters being around the human body temperature. This could be an issue when needing to warm up a colder solution in a quick amount of time. Nonetheless, the biggest advantage of the aquarium heater is the cost. Being a fraction of the sous vide machine, it is more feasible for the set budget.
Next, the immersion heater is a simplified version of the aquarium heater, where a heating rod is placed into the reservoir to warm the solution. This product is the simplest version, but unlike the other heaters, it lacks a temperature sensor and requires a separate sensor. It also lacks the ability to stop heating the solution once it reaches a set temperature, and it needs to be manually turned off once it reaches the desired set point. Therefore, it cannot heat the solution consistently for prolonged periods of time.
Lastly, the electric water heater is a permanent set up which connects a water hose directly to the machine. Unlike the other three products, this is the only product that does not get submerged in the reservoir. While it is easy to use with easy temperature settings, it is hard to set up and cost much more than any of the devices. Also, it can only connect to a direct water line, so warming up the water/glycerol solution seems impossible to do.
Proposed Solution
After Pugh chart analysis of the potential design alternatives, a complete design solution consisting of the components from each Pugh chart was created. Figure 1 depicts a flow chart of the main components of the proposed solution.
Starting with the heating system, the sous vide will be set to the heat the reservoir to 37°C. Once the reservoir of the 60/40 (by volume) water-glycerol solution reads 37°C on the sous vide, the peristaltic pump will be turned on [18]. The blood solution will leave the reservoir and pass through the fluid-tight catherization ports, where the nanoparticles are injected by syringes. The combined fluid advances towards to the DS18B20 temperature sensor before the solution travels through the vessel system of either silicone tubes or 3D rigid prints. Directly above is a mounted webcam recording the infusion delivery of nanoparticles. The nanoparticles exit the vessel system safely into a waste bin.
The microprocessor will be connected to the temperature controller and peristaltic pump in order to control the temperature and flow rate of the simulated blood. The precise temperature will then be outputted by the temperature sensor to the microprocessor. The webcam could also be connected to and controlled by the microprocessor, but could also be connected directly to the user’s PC via USB. The temperature data and webcam feed will then be able to be viewed on the user’s personal computer.
Budget Proposal
The budget given by UN&UP for the vascular phantom is $750 per unit. The main components of the design prototype have nearly exact estimates of their predicted costs due to the research done so far for the leading design alternatives. The best estimates of the rest of the vascular phantom expenses are included to verify staying under budget. With the nanoparticles supplied from UN&UP, Table 7 shows evidence that the estimated cost of the prototype will remain under the budget of $750.
| Table 7: Estimated Price of Significant Costing Components. | ||||
| Related DS# | Component | Price | Quantity | Amount |
| SDS01 | Webcam | 79.99 | 1 | – |
| SDS03 | Temperature Sensors | 8.99 | 1 | – |
| CDS01 | Fluid Tight Ports | 9.33 | 1 | 25 ct |
| CDS02 | Observation Window/Vessel Housing | 9.99 | 1 | 10 ct |
| PDS01 | Glycerin | 24.99 | 1 | 64 oz |
| PDS02 | Heating Element | 99.99 | 1 | – |
| PDS03 | Peristaltic Pump | 19.19 | 1 | – |
| PDS04 | Silicone Tubes and SLA print (free) | 4.50 | 2 | 3.5 ft |
| PDS04 | Catheter Tubing | 9.69 | 1 | 5 ft |
| SFDS02 | Microprocessor | 38.00 | 1 | – |
| Tubing for System Components | 27.38 | 2 | 25 ft | |
| Reservoir and Waste (1 gallon) | 17.00 | 1 | 5 ct | |
| Total Estimated Price: | $349.05 |
Works Cited
[1] L. Karstensen, T. Behr, T. P. Pusch, F. Mathis-Ullrich, and J. Stallkamp, “Autonomous guidewire navigation in a two-dimensional vascular phantom,” Curr. Dir. Biomed. Eng., vol. 6, no. 1, 2020.
[2] J. Urbina, J. Sotelo, D. Springmüller, C. Montalba, K. Letelier, C. Tejos, P. Irarrázaval, M. Andia, R. Razavi, I. Valverde, and S. Uribe, “Realistic aortic phantom to study hemodynamics using MRI and cardiac catheterization in normal and aortic coarctation conditions: Realistic Thoracic Aortic Phantom,” J. Magn. Reson. Imaging, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 683–697, 2016.
[3] C. Ionita, M. Mokin, N. Varble, D. Bednarek, J. Xiang, and S. Rudin, “Challenges and limitations of patient-specific vascular phantom fabrication using 3D Polyjet printing,” Proceedings of SPIE–the International Society for Optical Engineering, 9038, 90380M, 2014.
[4] K. Lund, G. Tangen, and F. Manstad-Hulaas, “Electromagnetic navigation versus fluoroscopy in aortic endovascular procedures: a phantom study,” Int J CARS 12, 51–57, 2017.
[5] R. Rusch, J. Trentmann, and L. Hummitzsch, “Feasibility of a circulation model for the assessment of endovascular recanalization procedures and periprocedural thromboembolism,” in-vitro. Sci Rep 9, 17356, 2019.
[6] M. Laughlin, S. Stephens, and J. Hestekin, “Development of Custom Wall-Less Cardiovascular Flow Phantoms with Tissue-Mimicking Gel.” Cardiovasc Eng Tech, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13239-021-00546-7
[7] Y. R. Limbu, G. Gurung, R. Malla, R. Rajbhandari, and S. R. Regmi, “Assessment of carotid artery dimensions by ultrasound in non-smoker healthy adults of both sexes.” Nepal Medical College Journal, NMCJ vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 200-203, 2006.
[8] H. Shima, K. Ohno, K. Michi, K. Egawa, and R. Takiguchi, “An anatomical study on the forearm vascular system.” Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery, official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery vol. 24 no. 5, pp. 293-299, 1996.
[9] S. G. Yazdi, L. Huetter, P. D. Docherty, P. N. Williamson, D. Clucas, M. Jermy, and P. H. Geoghegan, “A Novel Fabrication Method for Compliant Silicone Phantoms of Arterial Geometry for Use in Particle Image Velocimetry of Haemodynamics,” Applied Sciences, vol. 9, no. 18, p. 3811, Sep. 2019.
[10] C. Russ, M. Gessat, V. Falk, and G. Székely, “Rapid Prototyping of Silicone-based Phantom Models for Stent Simulation Validation,” MICCAI, 2012.
[11] H. Geoghegan, N. Buchmann, and C. Spence, “Fabrication of rigid and flexible refractive-index-matched flow phantoms for flow visualisation and optical flow measurements,” Exp Fluids 52, 1331–1347, 2012.
[12] L. Ruedinger, R. Medero, and A. Roldán-Alzate, “Fabrication of Low-Cost Patient-Specific Vascular Models for Particle Image Velocimetry,” Cardiovasc Eng Tech 10, 500–507, 2019.
[13] C. K. Ho, A. J. Y. Chee, B. Y. S. Yiu, A. C. O. Tsang, K. W. Chow and A. C. H. Yu, “Wall-Less Flow Phantoms with Tortuous Vascular Geometries: Design Principles and a Patient-Specific Model Fabrication Example,” IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 25-38, Jan. 2017.
14] A. J. Y. Chee, C. K. Ho, B. Y. S. Yiu, and A. C. H. Yu, “Walled Carotid Bifurcation Phantoms for Imaging Investigations of Vessel Wall Motion and Blood Flow Dynamics,” IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, 63(11), 1852–1864, 2016.
[15] H. Nisar, J. Moore, and R. Piazza, “A simple, realistic walled phantom for intravascular and intracardiac applications,” Int J CARS 15, 1513–1523, 2020.
[16] H. Saaid, J. Voorneveld, C. Schinkel, J. Westenberg, F. Gijsen, P. Segers,P. Verdonck, N. de Jong, J. Bosch, S. Kenjeres, and T. Claessens, “Tomographic PIV in a model of the left ventricle: 3D flow past biological and mechanical heart valves.” Journal of biomechanics, 90, 40–49, 2019.
[17] L. Luu, P. Roman, S. Matthews, and J. Ramella-Roman, “Microfluidics based phantoms of superficial vascular network.” Biomedical Optics Express, 3(6), 1350-1364, 2012.
[18] Brindise, M. M. Busse, and P. P. Vlachos, “Density and viscosity matched Newtonian and non-Newtonian blood-analog solutions with PDMS refractive index,” Exp. Fluids, vol. 59, no. 11, 2018.
Appendix A
| Table 1: Updated Design Specifications. | |||
| DS # | Function | Description | Metric |
| SDS01 | Infusion delivery monitoring | Webcam | <30 fps |
| SDS02 | Sensors for correct temperature conditions | Waterproof temperature sensing probe | 37C in range within 0.1 accuracy |
| CDS01 | Waterproofing | Fluid tight ports | |
| CDS02 | Observation Window | Observation of infusion and fluid housing | 60cm x 10cm x 10cm housing unit |
| PDS01 | Simulation of blood | Glycerin-water solution | 4cp solution |
| PDS02 | Heating system | Dual heating system: water fluid heating and blood solution reservoir | maintain 37C |
| PDS03 | Pumping system | Variable pumping to replicate arterial and venous pressure | 80-120mmHg |
| PDS04 | Vessel system | Moving fluid from one end of observation window to the other | Multiple vessels for diameters, [6mm and 2mm] |
| PDS05 | Catheters | Intravenous/intra-arterial catheters | BD Nexiva |
| SFDS01 | Firmware | Temperature, flow rate, and webcam control | Microprocessor |
| SFDS02 | Software | Import of temperature and flow rate data and webcam feed | Microprocessor/PC |
| GDS01 | Water Resistance | Protection of electrical components from water solution | IP42 |
| GDS02 | Surge Protection | Electrical protection from surges | 110 V |
| GDS03 | Budget | Maximum price of prototype | $750 |
| GDS04 | Timeline | Date of prototype delivery | 4/22/22 |