A computational fluid dynamics assessment of 3D printed ventilator splitters and restrictors for differential multi-patient ventilation.

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.

Determining the Learning Curve for Acquiring Core Sonographic Skills for Ultrasound-Guided Axillary Brachial Plexus Block.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to determine the learning curve for capturing sonograms and identifying anatomical structures relevant to ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block and to determine if massed was superior to distributed practice for this core sonographic skill. METHODS: Ten University of Melbourne, third- or fourth-year Doctor of Medicine students were randomized to massed or distributed practice. Participants performed 15 supervised learning sessions comprising scanning followed by feedback. A "sonographic proficiency score" was calculated by summing parameters in acquiring and interpreting the sonogram, and identifying relevant anatomical structures. RESULTS: Between the 1st and 10th sessions, the proficiency scores increased (P = 0.043). Except for one, all participants had relatively rapid increases in their "sonographic proficiency scores." There was no difference in proficiency scores between the 15th and 10th sessions (P > 0.05). There was no difference in scores between groups for the first session, (P = 0.40), 15th session (P = 0.10), or at any time. There was no difference in the slope of the increase in "sonographic proficiency score" over the first 10 scanning sessions between groups [massed, 1.1 (0.32); distributed, 0.90 (0.15); P = 0.22) presented as mean (SD)]. The 95% confidence interval for the difference in slopes between massed and distributed groups was -0.15 to 0.56. CONCLUSIONS: The proficiency of participants in capturing sonograms and identifying anatomical structures improved significantly over 8 to 10 learning sessions. Because of sample size issues, we cannot make a firm conclusion regarding massed versus distributed practice for this core sonographic skill.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Ultrasound Versus Nerve Stimulator Guidance for Axillary Brachial Plexus Block.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided techniques improve outcomes in regional anesthesia when compared with traditional techniques; however, this assertion has not been studied with novices. The primary objective of this study was to compare sensory and motor block after axillary brachial plexus block when performed by novice trainees allocated to an ultrasound- or nerve-stimulator-guided group. A secondary objective was to compare the rates of skill acquisition between the 2 groups. METHODS: This study was a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded, 2-arm controlled trial. Anesthesia trainees participating in this trial were novices to axillary brachial plexus block and sonography. All trainee participants underwent a standardized training program. The primary outcome was combined sensory and motor block in the relevant territories 30 minutes after completion of block. A global rating scale was used to assess trainee block performance. RESULTS: The study was ceased after 12 trainees completed 153 blocks. There was no difference between groups in combined motor/sensory score (P = 0.28) or as a function of block number (P = 0.38). There was no difference in onset between groups (P = 0.38). In both groups, there was an increase in the global rating scale score (P < 0.0001) and reduced preblock survey and block performance times (P = 0.001) with experience. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to demonstrate a difference in the efficacy of axillary brachial plexus block performed by novices when ultrasound guidance was compared with a nerve stimulator technique. There was evidence of similarly improved clinical performance of novices in both groups.