Thumb CMC Joint Biomechanics: A Novel Device for Dynamic …

Thumb CMC Joint Biomechanics: A Novel Device for Dynamic Splinting

A Major Qualifying Project (MQP) Submitted to the Faculty of

WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE In partial fufillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Bachelor of Science

BY:

Victoria G. Fleek (BE) Lauren N. Frank (BE) Samara R. Garcia (BE) Rachel E. Hesse (BE & ME) Domenick R. Mastascusa (BE)

DATE:

April 30, 2015

ADVISORS:

Dr. Samandar Dowlatshahi (UMass Medical School) Professor Karen Troy (WPI)

This report represents work of WPI undergraduate students submitted to the faculty as evidence of degree requirements. WPI routinely publishes these reports on its website without editorial or peer review. For more information about the project program at WPI, see

1

Abstract

Thumb Carpometacarpal (CMC) joint arthritis is a major detriment to predominately post-menopausal women. The project team, working in collaboration with the University of Massachusetts Medical School, was asked to create a dynamic splint that combats the CMC joint arthritis, as most splints on the market do not treat the specific arthritis of the thumb. Along with the splint, the team developed a preliminary Finite Element Analysis (FEA) model of the CMC joint that was designed to analyze the stresses and strains that act on the joint during specific movements. The team performed material testing and tested the novel splint on non-arthritic patients to observe the efficacy of the splint on all parts of the hand, not just the CMC joint. Based on the results, the team was able to revise their design as well as make future recommendations if the project were to be continued.

2

Acknowledgements

The project team would first like to thank Dr. Samandar Dowlatshahi (UMass Medical School) and Professor Karen Troy (WPI) for advising this project. Their dedication to this project was obvious through countless meetings, emails, and phone calls over the entire academic year. The combined efforts and expertise of the advisors allowed the team to complete and understand various elements of the project. Dr. Dowlatshahi's experience advising past projects, medical expertise, and experience with patients was crucial for research and collection of data. Professor Troy's knowledge of biomechanics and resources for conducting biomechanical research and data acquisition was extremely useful to complete calculations and data collection.

The team would also like to thank Professor Troy's graduate students, Tiffiny Butler and Joshua Johnson for devoting their time and assistance. The team would also like to extend thanks to Professor Sakthikumar Ambady (WPI) and Lisa Wall (WPI) for their efforts in coordinating MQP projects and research and also designating usable laboratory space for the team. Additionally, the team would like to thank Professor Amanda (Zoe) Reidinger for her help using the Instron? testing system.

Thank you to all of the survey participants. The team appreciates your availability and cooperation in answering surveys and completing activities to provide feedback and data concerning the team's design. Lastly, the team would like to extend a special thanks to Sandra Fleek for her expertise in sewing and fabric construction.

3

Authorship

1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 2.1 Anatomy 2.2 Thumb CMC Osteoarthritis (OA) 2.3 Surgical Solutions 2.4 Nonsurgical Solutions 2.5 Patents 2.6 FEA Modeling 2.7 Prototype Testing and Evaluation 2.8 Conclusion 3. Project Strategy 3.1 Initial Client Statement 3.2 Objectives and Constraints 3.3 Revised Client Statement 3.4 Project Approach 4. Alternative Designs 4.1 Needs Analysis and Design Specifications 4.2 Feasibility 4.3 Manual Calculations 4.4 FEA Model 4.5 Conceptual Designs 4.6 Alternative Designs 4.7 Decision Making Process 4.8 Initial Splint Prototype 4.9 Experimental Methods 5. Design Verification 5.1 Compression Testing of Bulk Materials 5.2 Planned Patient Surveying 5.3 Unaffected Individual Surveying 5.4 Team Testing 6. Discussion of Results 6.1 Planned Patient Surveying 6.2 Unaffected Individual Surveying 6.3 Team Testing 6.4 Compression Testing 6.5 FEA Model 6.6 Device Comparison with Current Solutions 6.7 Limitations of Results 6.8 Prospective Impacts of Design 7. Final Design and Validation 7.1 Changes Based on Survey Results 7.2 Changes Based on Advisor Feedback 7.3 Changes Based on Mechanical Testing 7.4 Team Testing with Final Design

All

Victoria Fleek & Rachel Hesse Victoria Fleek, Lauren Frank, & Rachel Hesse Lauren Frank & Samara Garcia Samara Garcia Domenick Mastascusa Lauren Frank & Rachel Hesse Lauren Frank Victoria Fleek

Victoria Fleek Rachel Hesse Victoria Fleek & Rachel Hesse Samara Garcia & Domenick Mastascusa

Victoria Fleek & Rachel Hesse Lauren Frank Rachel Hesse Rachel Hesse Victoria Fleek & Rachel Hesse Victoria Fleek Samara Garcia Victoria Fleek Victoria Fleek, Lauren Frank & Rachel Hesse

Lauren Frank Victoria Fleek Victoria Fleek & Samara Garcia Victoria Fleek & Samara Garcia

Rachel Hesse Rachel Hesse Rachel Hesse Victoria Fleek Rachel Hesse Rachel Hesse Rachel Hesse All

Lauren Frank Lauren Frank Lauren Frank Victoria Fleek

4

8. Conclusions and Final Recommendations 8.1 Design Benefits and Cost 8.2 Business Model 8.3 Future Recommendations 8.4 Future Projects for Thumb CMC OA

Lauren Frank Domenick Mastascusa Lauren Frank Lauren Frank

5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download