May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
Flow Characterization of 4 Different Models of Ex-PRESS Drainage Devices
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • A. Bissig
    Glaucoma Unit, Jules Gonin Eye Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
  • S. Roy
    Glaucoma Unit, Jules Gonin Eye Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
    Laboratory of Hemodynamics and Cardiovascular Technology, Swiss Federal institute of technology, Lausanne, Switzerland
  • J. Broquet
    Glaucoma Unit, Jules Gonin Eye Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
  • M. Feusier
    Glaucoma Unit, Jules Gonin Eye Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
  • A. Mermoud
    Centre de Glaucome, Clinique de Montchoisi, Lausanne, Switzerland
  • E. Ravinet
    Glaucoma Unit, Jules Gonin Eye Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  A. Bissig, None; S. Roy, None; J. Broquet, None; M. Feusier, None; A. Mermoud, None; E. Ravinet, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 358. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      A. Bissig, S. Roy, J. Broquet, M. Feusier, A. Mermoud, E. Ravinet; Flow Characterization of 4 Different Models of Ex-PRESS Drainage Devices. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):358. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To characterize the flow parameters of 4 different models of Ex-PRESSTM drainage devices.

Methods: : Three samples of 4 different models of Ex-PRESSTM drainage devices, the V-50, V-200, X-50 and X-200 were tested. Three measurements per sample were performed. The pressure in an in-series system composed of a microsyringe pump, an electronic pressure transducer and the drainage device plunged in saline solution at 37°C was measured for 4 different flow steps. The slope of the flow-pressure curve gave the resistance to the flow (R) of the device. Modelling of the 4 drainage devices was performed using SolidWorkTM. Flow was simulated using FloWorksTM.

Results: : Based on the experimental measurements, R for the 3 samples of the V-50 model was 38.03 ± 3.2, 38.38 ± 1.61, and 39.41 ± 0.61 mmHgminml-1 (mean ± SD), respectively. R for the V-200 was 4.82 ± 0.4, 4.86 ± 0.32, and 4.97 ± 0.38 mmHgminml-1, respectively. For the X-50 samples, R was 15.17 ± 0.37, 13.27 ± 0.34, and 11.15 ± 0.33 mmHgminml-1, respectively, and for the X-200 5.78 ± 0.37, 5.86 ± 0.37, and 5.81 ± 0.27 mmHgminml-1, respectively. The computer simulation gave following results: 33.7 ± 0.02, 5.1 ± 0.01, 17.9 ± 0.02, and 6.1 ± 0.01 mmHgminml-1 for the V-50, the V-200, the X-50 and the X-200, respectively.

Conclusions: : The geometry of the V and X models and the presence of a resistance unit inside the lumen (-50 series) significantly modify the flow characteristics of the 4 models of Ex-PRESSTM drainage devices.

Keywords: computational modeling • clinical laboratory testing • anterior segment 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×