• Login
    View Item 
    •   DSpace Home
    • ASME
    • Journal of Medical Devices
    • View Item
    •   DSpace Home
    • ASME
    • Journal of Medical Devices
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    pneuRIPTM: A Novel Respiratory Inductance Plethysmography Monitor

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    med_011_01_011010.pdf (1.647Mb)
    Date
    2017
    Author
    Rahman, Tariq
    Page, Ralph
    Page, Christopher
    Bonnefoy, Jean-Remy
    Cox, Tim
    Shaffer, Thomas H.
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Objective pulmonary function (PF) evaluation is essential for the diagnosis, monitoring, and management of many pediatric respiratory diseases as seen in the emergency room, intensive care, and outpatient settings. In this paper, the development and testing of a new noninvasive PF instrument, pneuRIPTM, which utilizes respiratory inductance plethysmography (RIP) are discussed. The pneuRIPTM hardware includes a small circuit board that connects to the RIP bands and measures and wirelessly transmits the band inductance data to any designated wirelessly connected tablet. The software provides indices of respiratory work presented instantaneously in a user-friendly graphical user interface on the tablet. The system was tested with ten normal children and compared with an existing system, Respitrace (Sensormedics, Yorba Linda, CA), under normal and loaded breathing conditions. Under normal breathing, the percentage differences between the two systems were 2.9% for labored breathing index (LBI), 31.8% for phase angle (Φ), 4.8% for percentage rib cage (RC%), and 26.7% for respiratory rate (BPM). Under loaded breathing, the percentage differences between the two systems were 1.6% for LBI, 4.1% for Φ, 8.5% for RC%, and 52.7% for BPM. For LBI, Φ, and RC%, the two systems were in general agreement. For BPM the pneuRIPTM is shown to be more accurate than the respitrace when compared to manually counting the breaths: 13.2% versus 36.4% accuracy for normal breathing and 16.9% versus 60.7% accuracy for breathing under load, respectively.
    URI
    http://138.201.223.254:8080/yetl1/handle/yetl/4235198
    Collections
    • Journal of Medical Devices

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    @mire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    @mire NV