[About Thrombotix]
Click on the titles to expand the section...Introduction
Objective
Impact & Significance
Existing Products
Pros:
− The device was approved by the Food & Drug Administration
− 48% recanalization rate from the device alone
− 60% recanalization rate from the device with adjuvant therapy
− 28% mortality rate with a Rankin score of 2
Cons:
− Overall mortality rate of 44%


click thumbnail for enlarged photo
AngioJet System
The AngioJet system is a device that uses saline jets directed back into the catheter to
create a low pressure zone at the end of the device to essentially vacuum the clot to
remove it from the body. However the system was designed to remove clots from other
arteries other than from the brain.
Pros:
− The clot burden was reduced in all patients
− Stenosis was less than 50% of vascular diameter
Cons:
− In previous trials, clinical results were poor due to poor collateral flow.
− Three vessel perforations occurred with subarachnoid hemorrhage



click thumbnail for enlarged photo
Pros:
− The clot burden was reduced in all patients
− Stenosis was less than 50% of vascular diameter
Cons:
− In previous trials, clinical results were poor due to poor collateral flow.
− Three vessel perforations occurred with subarachnoid hemorrhage

click thumbnail for enlarged photo
Endovascular Photo Acoustic Recanalization Laser
The endovascular photo acoustic recanalization (EPAR) laser directs laser energy to the
clot where it is absorbed and converted to acoustic energy. The clot is then broken up into
small globules by the tip of the device. Clinical trials showed success in 44% of patients
were the device was used in conjunction with drug therapy, but only a 15% success rate
were the device was used alone. Currently, lack of funding has stopped any further
clinical trials.
Pros:
− Recanalization occurred in 44% of the people in its trial
− The device showed acceptable safety criteria when in operation
Cons:
− 38% mortality rate
− Recanalization occurred 15% of the time solely with this device
− If performed improperly, this device could cause fatal vascular rupture
Pros:
− Recanalization occurred in 44% of the people in its trial
− The device showed acceptable safety criteria when in operation
Cons:
− 38% mortality rate
− Recanalization occurred 15% of the time solely with this device
− If performed improperly, this device could cause fatal vascular rupture

click thumbnail for enlarged photo
EKOS Ultrasound Device
The EKOS ultrasound device uses a small ultrasound transducer at the tip of the device in
combination with drug therapy to dissolve the clot. The ultrasound waves increase the
permeability of the clot in order to speed up the effects of the drugs. Clinical trials of this
device are currently ongoing, preliminary results show that complete breakdown of the
clot takes an average of 46 minutes.
Pros:
− Average time for recanalization was 46 minutes
− TIMI grade 2-3 flow was attained in 57% patients in the first hour.
Cons:
− Device was used in conjunction with tPA



click thumbnail for enlarged photo
Pros:
− Average time for recanalization was 46 minutes
− TIMI grade 2-3 flow was attained in 57% patients in the first hour.
Cons:
− Device was used in conjunction with tPA


click thumbnail for enlarged photo
Latis Laser Device
Latis Laser Device
The Latis laser device uses a laser at its tip to heat the clot to the point where it would
breakdown. However, clinical trials showed that surgeons were unable to successfully get
the device to the brain and further trials were abandoned.
Pros:
− A patient can receive treatment in up to eight hours in comparison to two or three hours
Cons:
− Of the first five patients included in the initial trial, two could not have the device delivered to clot site.
Pros:
− A patient can receive treatment in up to eight hours in comparison to two or three hours
Cons:
− Of the first five patients included in the initial trial, two could not have the device delivered to clot site.
Innovative Ideas/Conceptual Designs
click thumbnail for enlarged photo
click thumbnail for enlarged photo
click thumbnail for enlarged photo
Criteria for Conceptual Design Comparison
Selection of the Conceptual Design and Expected Performance Specification
click thumbnail for enlarged photo
Functional Requirements
System Parameters
click thumbnail for enlarged photo
click thumbnail for enlarged photo
Design Constraints
Technical Analysis
Table 1: Modes for Blocks |
|||||||
Name |
X (mm) |
Y (mm) |
L (mm) |
1st Mode (Hz) |
2nd Mode (Hz) |
3rd Mode (Hz) |
4th Mode (Hz) |
Geometry1 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
3 |
53270 |
53550 |
0.30452E+06 |
0.30999E+06 |
Geometry2 |
0.5 |
1 |
3 |
57722 |
91039 |
0.27351E+06 |
0.33008E+06 |
Geometry3 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
4 |
34790 |
37276 |
0.20414E+06 |
0.22488E+06 |
Geometry4 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
5 |
24732 |
27101 |
0.13462E+06 |
0.15850E+06 |
Geometry5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
10 |
6777.9 |
7950.1 |
41322 |
46672 |
Geometry10 |
1 |
1 |
10 |
12366 |
13550 |
67303 |
79227 |

Figure 1: Block Geometry
Table 2: Modes for Cylinders |
||||||
Name |
Dia (mm) |
Len (mm) |
1st Mode (Hz) |
2nd Mode (Hz) |
3rd Mode (Hz) |
4th Mode (Hz) |
Geometry6 |
0.5 |
3 |
39186 |
39187 |
0.22545E+06 |
0.22545E+06 |
Geometry7 |
0.5 |
5 |
14201 |
14202 |
0.86100E+05 |
0.86108E+05 |
Geometry15 |
0.5 |
10 |
3557.8 |
3558 |
0.22107E+05 |
0.22109E+05 |
Geometry16 |
0.5 |
12 |
2473.7 |
2474 |
15412 |
15415 |
Table 3: Modes for Wide End |
|||||||
Name |
X,Y (mm) |
Z (mm) |
N (mm) |
1st Mode (Hz) |
2nd Mode (Hz) |
3rd Mode (Hz) |
4th Mode (Hz) |
Geometry8 |
0.5 |
10 |
1 |
6391.7 |
6843.8 |
42687 |
46123 |
Geometry9 |
0.5 |
10 |
2 |
5727.3 |
6462.4 |
43183 |
44892 |
Geometry11 |
0.5 |
10 |
5 |
5239.5 |
5766.6 |
40266 |
42972 |
Geometry12 |
0.5 |
10 |
8 |
5232.4 |
6275.5 |
43535 |
51744 |
Figure 2: Wide End Geometry
Table 4: Modes for Large End |
||||||||
Name |
A1,B1 (mm) |
A2,B2 (mm) |
Z (mm) |
N (mm) |
1st Mode (Hz) |
2nd Mode (Hz) |
3rd Mode (Hz) |
4th Mode (Hz) |
Geometry13 |
0.5 |
1 |
10 |
5 |
3700.8 |
4156.8 |
35725 |
36487 |

Figure 3: Large End - Geometry 13
Table 5: Modes for Geometry 14 |
||||
Name |
1st Mode (Hz) |
2nd Mode (Hz) |
3rd Mode (Hz) |
4th Mode (Hz) |
Geometry14 |
3961.3 |
4022.9 |
26928 |
28483 |
Table 6: Properties of materials |
|||||
Name |
Size (in) |
Density (kg/m) |
Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) |
Poissons Ratio |
Source |
High Carbon Steel |
0.02 |
7850 |
210 |
0.313 |
MSC |
Stainless Steel |
0.02 |
8000 |
93 |
0.3 |
MSC |
Aluminum |
0.02 |
2710 |
68.9 |
0.33 |
McMaster Carr |
Carbon Steel |
0.023 |
7872 |
200 |
0.29 |
McMaster Carr |
click thumbnail for enlarged photo
Table 7: Results of material testing |
||
Material |
1st Mode (Hz) |
2nd Mode (Hz) |
High Carbon Steel |
1800 |
1800.1 |
Stainless Steel |
1187.9 |
1188 |
Aluminum |
1757.8 |
1758 |
Carbon Steel |
1753.9 |
1754.1 |
Table 8: Properties of test block material |
||||||
Material |
Machinability |
Size (in) |
Density (kg/m) |
Modulus (GPa) |
Poissons Ratio |
Price ($) |
Aluminum 2024 |
Good |
2 x 2 x 2 |
2780 |
73 |
0.33 |
31.00 |
Steel 12L14 |
Excellent |
2 x 2 x 12 |
7870 |
200 |
0.29 |
49.59 |
Table 9: Test results for base materials |
||
Material |
1st Mode (Hz) |
2nd Mode (Hz)
|
Aluminum 2024 |
1651.7 |
1651.8 |
Steel 12L14 |
1653.2 |
1653.2 |
Table 10: Final design parameters |
|
Finger Geometries (mm) |
Diameter = 0.5mm, Length = 12mm |
Finger Material |
High Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel |
Base Geometry (mm) |
5x5x2 |
Base Material |
Aluminum 2024 or Steel 12L14 |
For the first iteration, we used the P-887.90 piezoelectric actuator to excite the fingers. The P-887.90 has a nominal displacement 32 μm and a resonant frequency 40 kHz. The results of the first test can be found below.
Table 11:
Results of base materials in harmonic testing
|
||
|
Aluminum 2024 |
Steel 12L14
|
|
Max. Deformation (m) |
4.3264e-5
|
4.5045e-5
|
click thumbnail for enlarged photo
click thumbnail for enlarged photo
Press PLAY to watch video of our design in action
Testing Apparatus
click thumbnail for enlarged photo
click thumbnail for enlarged photo

