Mechanical Improvement of Gas Monitoring System in Monoplace Hyperbaric Chamber to Advance the Safety and Efficacy

Abstract

Hee Young Lee,1,* Yoonsuk Lee,1,2,* Hyun Kim,1,2 Jin Hui Paik3 1Department of Emergency Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Gangwon State, Republic of Korea; 2Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Center, Wonju Severance Christian Hospital, Wonju, Gangwon State, Republic of Korea; 3Department of Emergency Medicine, Inha University College of Medicine, Incheon, Republic of Korea*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Hyun Kim, Department of Emergency Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, 26426 Ilsan-ro, Wonju, Gangwon State, Republic of Korea, Tel [phone], Fax [phone], Email [email protected]: A Monoplace hyperbaric chamber delivers oxygen to the patient’s tissues through breathing. Gas monitoring inside the chamber is important because oxygen (O2) is consumed, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is increased because treatment is performed in a closed volume. This study aimed to advance the safety and efficacy of the monoplace hyperbaric chamber (MHC) through mechanical improvement in a gas monitoring system (GMS).Methods: First, as the oxygen supply method was changed to the direction of the patient’s face, it was compared the values of O2, CO2, humidity, and temperature were measured in the MHC and the GMS when operating at 2.0 atmosphere absolute (ATA) and 3.0 ATA. Second, to evaluate the effects of variables across measuring time, it was analyzed in a 3-way repeated measure ANOVA (10 min.× 20 min.× 30 min.). Lastly, the values before and after the optimization of the MHC were compared by applying a cooler to prevent temperature rise inside the MHC.Results: In 2.0 ATA, the average humidity was higher in the MHC than in the GMS (p< 0.001). Also, the average temperature was lower in the MHC than in the GMS (p< 0.001). In 3.0 ATA, the average CO2 and humidity were higher in the MHC than in the GMS, respectively (p< 0.001, p=0.004). The 3-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference in most main and interacted factors (p< 0.05). O2 and temperature, comparing before and after MHC optimization, revealed a significant difference (p< 0.05).Conclusion: Few studies have verified safety and effectiveness by evaluating the pressure, oxygen concentration, etc. of a monoplace hyperbaric chamber. Further research is expected to verify the effectiveness of providing comfort to patients receiving hyperbaric oxygen treatment and increase the treatment effect. Keywords: monoplace hyperbaric chamber, gas monitoring system, mechanical improvement, safety and efficacy

Keywords

• monoplace hyperbaric chamber
• gas monitoring system
• mechanical improvement
• safety and efficacy