This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
TechView A “Cure” for an


In-Body Camera Housing Challenge


Medical manufacturing suppliers are expected to be able to innovate while maintaining required quality and safety standards. Quality controls are as impor- tant as nimble problem-solving abilities. Columbia Plastics, where we focus on in- jection molding, knows these challenges well, as the following example shows. Our customer came to us with the


challenge of making a curved camera housing for one-time use inside the body. Te camera unit is reusable and is to be inserted inside the housing. Te housing must protect both the patient and the camera from any form of contamination. Tis prevents cross contamination between patients and also ensures the camera electronics are kept clean. Te curve in the design is to provide the ability to slip into the abdominal cavity and be strong enough to maneuver and hold organs in order to see around them. Te housing must also include irrigation and suction lines to enable the surgeon to see clearly. Tese lines must be trimmed to the correct length and angle aſter being connected to the standard Luer fittings. Te angle of the arc along with


the camera locking feature, clamping rod and suction and irrigation lines mandated the unit be made in halves and assembled. Te assembly required a clear lens, the holder rod, the irrigation and suction lines along with their Luer fittings to be hermetically sealed to the handle and to support 25 lbs (11.25 kg) on the end of the clamping rod. In order to comply with Class 2


requirements for medical devices, we chose an ultraviolet curing adhesive that would withstand the electron beam


radiation used for sterilization. No ad- hesive was allowed on the lens or on the side of the part so it was applied roboti- cally to ensure a consistent volume and complete coverage. In order to avoid any adhesive leakage onto the outside of the housing it was necessary to make light- weight tooling to guide the two halves of the housing together. It was also criti-


F. Brian Holmes, CMfgE


Vice President and General Manager Columbia Plastics Ltd. Surrey, BC, Canada


way to do that was to hold the light in the same robot and follow the path of the adhesive dispensing with a suitable offset. Te holder bar was molded in a


highly filled polymer to replace the originally designed stainless steel unit. Tis allowed for electron beam steriliza- tion without creating radiation shadows on the part, and also reduced the weight of the assembled unit without com- promising the required strength. Te combined cost reduction for production and sterilization was $8 per unit. In order to ensure proper function-


Ultraviolet curing.


cal to ensure the parts came together properly and completely the first time to prevent any air pockets forming in the adhesive. An air pocket could allow a failure in the seal. Since the lens was required to be made separately to ensure the optical properties it had to be assem- bled to the main housing as well. Te fact that it sits on a perpendicular plane required a separate assembly process in order to access the sealing geometry.


Evaluation of the potential risks allowed us to develop economical test methods.


To ensure complete curing of the ad-


hesive we ran a portable ultraviolet light around the sealing area. Te procedure was designed to provide the whole joint with the same exposure so the curing would be equal in all areas. Te simplest


ing of the part in use, every unit needs to be tested to ensure the hermetic seal and physical strength requirements are met. Aſter the part is assembled, each unit is clamped into a fixture by the clamping bar and loaded with a 30-lb (13.5-kg) weight on the end of the unit. We then confirm the hermetic seal using a test unit we designed and built to pressurize the part and detect any pressure loss. All of the testing had to be calibrated to traceable standards as well. Once this test is completed, the unit


was sealed in a vacuum-formed tray and sent for sterilization and onto the customer for distribution. Te process development for this


product entailed utilizing six-sigma tech- niques to map the process. Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) was used to confirm all risks had been addressed. Te evaluation of the potential risks allowed us to develop economical test methods to validate the product’s ability to function reliably in the operating theatre.


F. Brian Holmes served as SME President in 2007.


Medical Manufacturing 2013 29


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199  |  Page 200  |  Page 201  |  Page 202  |  Page 203  |  Page 204  |  Page 205  |  Page 206  |  Page 207  |  Page 208  |  Page 209  |  Page 210  |  Page 211  |  Page 212  |  Page 213  |  Page 214  |  Page 215  |  Page 216  |  Page 217  |  Page 218  |  Page 219  |  Page 220  |  Page 221  |  Page 222  |  Page 223  |  Page 224  |  Page 225  |  Page 226  |  Page 227  |  Page 228  |  Page 229  |  Page 230  |  Page 231  |  Page 232  |  Page 233  |  Page 234  |  Page 235  |  Page 236  |  Page 237  |  Page 238  |  Page 239  |  Page 240