PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11601815

A new device for microincremental automatic distraction osteogenesis.

A F Ayoub·W Richardson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We have invented a distraction device that can be placed intraorally and provides autodistraction. The device consists of two units: an implantable component that is applied directly on the bone, and an external component that is distant from the surgical site. The external component is mounted on a standard, battery-driven portable syringe driver or infusion pump. A fine flexible non-compressible tube connects the two. The compression of the bellows in the external component causes fluid to be forced through the connecting tube into the distraction component. The combination of the sealed system and incompressible fluid guarantees expansion of the bellows of the distraction component and gradually separates the bone segments.

Explore related subjects

Electric Power SuppliesEquipment DesignEquipment SafetyHumansInternal FixatorsIntubationMicrosurgeryOsteogenesis, DistractionPolytetrafluoroethylenePressureStainless SteelStress, MechanicalJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A F Ayoub, W Richardson. 2001. A new device for microincremental automatic distraction osteogenesis.. https://doi.org/10.1054/bjom.2000.0659

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Prevalence of working smoke alarms in local authority inner city housing: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To identify which type of smoke alarm is most likely to remain working in local authority inner city housing, and to identify an alarm tolerated in households with smokers. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two local authority housing estates in inner London. PARTICIPANTS: 2145 households. INTERVENTION: Installation of one of five types of smoke alarm (ionisation sensor with a zinc battery; ionisation sensor with a zinc battery and pause button; ionisation sensor with a lithium battery and pause button; optical sensor with a lithium battery; or optical sensor with a zinc battery). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Percentage of homes with any working alarm and percentage in which the alarm installed for this study was working after 15 months. RESULTS: 54.4% (1166/2145) of all households and 45.9% (465/1012) of households occupied by smokers had a working smoke alarm. Ionisation sensor, lithium battery, and there being a smoker in the household were independently associated with whether an alarm was working (adjusted odds ratios 2.24 (95% confidence interval 1.75 to 2.87), 2.20 (1.77 to 2.75), and 0.62 (0.52 to 0.74)). The most common reasons for non-function were missing battery (19%), missing alarm (17%), and battery disconnected (4%). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of the alarms installed were not working when tested 15 months later. Type of alarm and power source are important determinants of whether a household had a working alarm.

Electric Power Supplies↗