Differences in remuneration for urologic services across provinces in Canada

NA (research letter)

Há diferença na força de compressão interfragmentar entre parafusos com rosca total ou parcial? Resultados de um estudo biomecânico experimental piloto

Objetivo Este estudo avaliou diferenças entre parafusos com rosca total ou parcial na resistência à compressão interfragmentar inicial. Nossa hipótese era de que haveria maior perda de resistência à compressão inicial com o parafuso de rosca parcial.

Métodos Uma linha de fratura oblíqua de 45 graus foi criada em amostras de osso artificial. O primeiro grupo (TOTAL, n = 6) foi fixado com um parafuso de 3,5 mm de rosca total, enquanto o segundo grupo (PARCIAL, n = 6) usou um parafuso de 3,5 mm de rosca parcial. Avaliamos a rigidez à torção em ambas as direções de rotação. Os grupos foram comparados com base nos seguintes parâmetros biomecânicos: momento de rigidez-ângulo, momento de rigidez-tempo, momento de torção máxima (carga de falha) e força de compressão calibrada com base na medida do sensor de pressão.

Resultados Depois da perda de uma amostra PARCIAL, não foram observadas diferenças estatisticamente significativas na força de compressão calibrada entre os 2 grupos [mediana (intervalo interquartil)]: TOTAL: 112,6 (10,5) N e PARCIAL: 106,9 (7,1) N, com p = 0,8 segundo o teste U de Mann-Whitney). Além disso, após a exclusão de 3 amostras para testes mecânicos (TOTAL, n = 5, PARCIAL, n = 4), não foram observadas diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os construtos TOTAL e PARCIAL quanto ao momento de rigidez-ângulo, momento de rigidez-tempo ou momento de torção máxima (carga de falha).

Conclusão Não há diferença aparente na força de compressão inicial (força de compressão ou rigidez do construto ou carga de falha) com o uso de parafusos de rosca total ou parcial neste modelo biomecânico em osso artificial de alta densidade. Parafusos de rosca total podem, portanto, ser mais úteis no tratamento de fraturas diafisárias. Mais pesquisas são necessárias sobre o impacto em modelos ósseos osteoporóticos ou metafisários de menor densidade e avaliação do significado clínico.

Development, manufacturing, and preliminary validation of a reusable half-face respirator during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to widespread shortages of N95 respirators and other personal protective equipment (PPE). An effective, reusable, locally-manufactured respirator can mitigate this problem. We describe the development, manufacture, and preliminary testing of an open-hardware-licensed device, the “simple silicone mask” (SSM).

Methods

A multidisciplinary team developed a reusable silicone half facepiece respirator over 9 prototype iterations. The manufacturing process consisted of 3D printing and silicone casting. Prototypes were assessed for comfort and breathability. Filtration was assessed by user seal checks and quantitative fit-testing according to CSA Z94.4–18.

Results

The respirator originally included a cartridge for holding filter material; this was modified to connect to standard heat-moisture exchange (HME) filters (N95 or greater) after the cartridge showed poor filtration performance due to flow acceleration around the filter edges, which was exacerbated by high filter resistance. All 8 HME-based iterations provided an adequate seal by user seal checks and achieved a pass rate of 87.5% (N = 8) on quantitative testing, with all failures occurring in the first iteration. The overall median fit-factor was 1662 (100 = pass). Estimated unit cost for a production run of 1000 using distributed manufacturing techniques is CAD $15 in materials and 20 minutes of labor.

Conclusion

Small-scale manufacturing of an effective, reusable N95 respirator during a pandemic is feasible and cost-effective. Required quantities of reusables are more predictable and less vulnerable to supply chain disruption than disposables. With further evaluation, such devices may be an alternative to disposable respirators during public health emergencies. The respirator described above is an investigational device and requires further evaluation and regulatory requirements before clinical deployment. The authors and affiliates do not endorse the use of this device at present.

Optimization of community-led 3D printing for the production of protective face shields

Background

As the healthcare system faced an acute shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of 3D printing technologies became an innovative method of increasing production capacity to meet this acute need. Due to the emergence of a large number of 3D printed face shield designs and community-led PPE printing initiatives, this case study examines the methods and design best optimized for community printers who may not have the resources or experience to conduct such a thorough analysis.

Case presentation

We present the optimization of the production of 3D printed face shields by community 3D printers, as part of an initiative aimed at producing PPE for healthcare workers. The face shield frames were manufactured using the 3DVerkstan design and were coupled with an acetate sheet to assemble a complete face shield. Rigorous quality assurance and decontamination protocols ensured community-printed PPE was satisfactory for healthcare use.

Conclusion

Additive manufacturing is a promising method of producing adequate face shields for frontline health workers because of its versatility and quick up-start time. The optimization of stacking and sanitization protocols allowed 3D printing to feasibly supplement formal public health responses in the face of a global pandemic.