9 research outputs found

    Improved thickness measurement on rough surfaces by using guided wave cut-off frequency

    Get PDF
    Substantial variability is seen when thickness measurements using conventional ultrasonic time of flight measurements are carried out on rough surfaces; this makes it difficult to estimate corrosion rates when the corrosion mechanism leads to surface roughness. It has been shown that thickness measurements using guided wave cut-off frequencies (through thickness resonance frequencies) can be done at much lower frequencies than conventional time of flight thickness gauging for the same minimum thickness resolution. The lower frequency measurements are less susceptible to variations caused by surface roughness and so will give more consistent and reliable results in cases where corrosion leads to increased surface roughness. Measurements were carried out using guided wave cut-off frequencies on four plates with different surface roughness. On a plate with root mean square (rms) surface roughness of 0.3 mm, the thickness estimates followed the trend predicted from the plate geometry and probe footprint, whereas higher frequency measurements reported in the literature deviated from this trend at an rms roughness of 0.1 mm. The guided wave cut-offcut-off frequency measurements can be done using the same transduction system as that used for large area guided wave monitoring so it is possible to combine large and small area monitoring in a single unit. Frequent measurements enable the wall thickness obtained with guided wave cut-off measurements to be tracked with time, and the low susceptibility of the measurements to surface roughness means that accurate corrosion rates will be obtained

    Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>LA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.</p
    corecore