Your browser doesn't support javascript.
A computational fluid dynamics assessment of 3D printed ventilator splitters and restrictors for differential multi-patient ventilation.
Duke, Daniel J; Clarke, Alexander L; Stephens, Andrew L; Djumas, Lee; Gregory, Shaun D.
  • Duke DJ; Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, 3800, Victoria, Australia. daniel.duke@monash.edu.
  • Clarke AL; Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, 3052, Victoria, Australia.
  • Stephens AL; Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, 3052, Victoria, Australia.
  • Djumas L; CardioRespiratory Engineering and Technology Laboratory (CREATElab), Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, 3004, Victoria, Australia.
  • Gregory SD; Department of Materials Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, 3800, Victoria, Australia.
3D Print Med ; 8(1): 2, 2022 Jan 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1590143
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The global pandemic of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has led to global shortages of ventilators and accessories. One solution to this problem is to split ventilators between multiple patients, which poses the difficulty of treating two patients with dissimilar ventilation needs. A proposed solution to this problem is the use of 3D-printed flow splitters and restrictors. There is little data available on the reliability of such devices and how the use of different 3D printing methods might affect their performance.

METHODS:

We performed flow resistance measurements on 30 different 3D-printed restrictor designs produced using a range of fused deposition modelling and stereolithography printers and materials, from consumer grade printers using polylactic acid filament to professional printers using surgical resin. We compared their performance to novel computational fluid dynamics models driven by empirical ventilator flow rate data. This indicates the ideal performance of a part that matches the computer model.

RESULTS:

The 3D-printed restrictors varied considerably between printers and materials to a sufficient degree that would make them unsafe for clinical use without individual testing. This occurs because the interior surface of the restrictor is rough and has a reduced nominal average diameter when compared to the computer model. However, we have also shown that with careful calibration it is possible to tune the end-inspiratory (tidal) volume by titrating the inspiratory time on the ventilator.

CONCLUSIONS:

Computer simulations of differential multi patient ventilation indicate that the use of 3D-printed flow splitters is viable. However, in situ testing indicates that using 3D printers to produce flow restricting orifices is not recommended, as the flow resistance can deviate significantly from expected values depending on the type of printer used. TRIAL REGISTRATION Not applicable.
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials Language: English Journal: 3D Print Med Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S41205-021-00129-1

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials Language: English Journal: 3D Print Med Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S41205-021-00129-1