Bioengineering

生物工程
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    Although general guidelines are available for established silicone gel breast implants, the unique characteristics of the latest Motiva implants warrant specific guidelines.
    This study aimed to generate consensus recommendations and summarize expert-based advice to better understand current surgical practices and to establish guidelines for surgeons transitioning from other implant devices to the Motiva implants.
    A survey was compiled by 12 plastic surgeon experts in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery and 1 biotechnology scientist, and distributed to 36 plastic surgeons to establish a consensus on the use of these devices. Surgical techniques, complication rates, and implant selection were among the topics discussed.
    The experts agreed on 3 core principles regarding the use of Motiva Round and Ergonomix implants. Firstly, the dissected pocket needs to be close fitting and steps must be taken to prevent expansion of the pocket. Secondly, implant selection must be individualized. Finally, surgical planning and technique must be carefully considered. When questioned about problems they had ecountered, 84.6% of the experts agreed that they experienced fewer overall complications and 76.9% confirmed reduced capsular contracture rates with these devices. Overall, 84.6% of the experts favored selecting Motiva Ergonomix implants over Round implants to achieve a more natural look. In addition, 92.3% of the experts agreed that Motiva implants, due to their innovative technology, reduce the risk of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma.
    This international consensus of leading practitioners will assist plastic surgeons with patient selection, preoperative planning, and surgical technique. These recommendations are designed to optimize surgical outcomes, resulting in lower overall complication rates, more natural-looking breasts, and highly satisfied patients.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    OBJECTIVE: Current health technology assessment (HTA) methods guidelines for medical devices may benefit from contributions by biomedical and clinical engineers. Our study aims to: (i) review and identify gaps in the current HTA guidelines on medical devices, (ii) propose recommendations to optimize the impact of HTA for medical devices, and (iii) reach a consensus among biomedical engineers on these recommendations.
    METHODS: A gray literature search of HTA agency Web sites for assessment methods guidelines on devices was conducted. The International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineers (IFMBE) then convened a structured focus group, with experts from different fields, to identify potential gaps in the current HTA guidelines, and to develop recommendations to fill these perceived gaps. The thirty recommendations generated from the focus group were circulated in a Delphi survey to eighty-five biomedical and clinical engineers.
    RESULTS: Thirty-two panelists, from seventeen countries, participated in the Delphi survey. The responses showed a strong agreement on twenty-seven of thirty recommendations. Some uncertainties remain about the methods to accurately assess the effectiveness and safety, and interoperability of a medical device with other devices or within the clinical setting.
    CONCLUSIONS: As medical devices differ from drug therapies, current HTA methods may not accurately reflect the conclusions of their assessment. Recommendations informed by the focus group discussions and Delphi survey responses aimed to address the perceived gaps, and to provide a more integrated approach in medical device assessments in combining engineering with other perspectives, such as clinical, economic, patient, human factors, ethical, and environmental.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    While the practice of ethical pondering has a formal academic history more than several thousand years old, and its pedigree within the human heart is undoubtedly much older, the somewhat specialized field of bioethics goes back approximately only 50 years in the United States. And while practitioners in the field-known as much for their painstaking pondering as for their acrimonious tendency to disagree-rarely achieve quick consensus on the pressing issues of the day, it would appear that in the United States we have reached some consensus on the best way of teaching biomedical ethics to undergraduate students.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

  • 暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号