Márquez MM, Ferreyro IR, Mendoza JAJ

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 44-51
PDF size: 154.83 Kb.

ABSTRACT

This work illustrates an application of a multi-criteria decision methodology, known as the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), with the aim of selecting a percutaneous vertebroplasty system, in order to guarantee a suitable and practical solution to a problem in biomedical engineering. This process of AHP is about assigning relative “weights” to those different alternatives when solving a specific problem, this being influenced by objective and subjective criteria, which are originated by the individuals participating in solving the problem; in considering the last, a better solution for a vertebroplasty system is arrived at, allowing to make decisions with high probability of success. Two complex problems related with vertebroplasty are taken into account: on the one hand, the capacity of injecting a biomaterial, the polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA), in the vertebral spongy bone; on the other hand, to set apart the physician to a safe distance from the system to avoid over-exposure to ionizing radiation. Other criteria like ergonomics, lifetime and price are examined.

REFERENCES

1. Milano A. Resolución de Problemas y Toma de Decisiones. Ediciones Macchi. 1993.

2. Martin CJ, Whitby M. Application of ALARP to extremity doses for hospital workers. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2003; 23(4): 405-421.

3. Gallagher CA, Watson HJ. Métodos Cuantitativos para la Toma de Decisiones en Administración. Mc Graw-Hill Interamericana de México, S.A. de C.V., México, 1994.

4. Omann I. How can Multi-criteria Decision Analysis contribute to environmental policy making? A case study on macro-sustainability in Germany. Third International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Austria, 2000.

5. The National Academic Press. Theoretical Foundations for Decision Making in Engineering Design (en línea). http://books.nap.edu/books/NI000481/html/R1.html# pagetop (Accesado 29 de Agosto de 2003) 2001.

6. Scott MJ, Antonsson EK. Arrow’s Theorem and Engineering Design Decision Making. Research in Engineering Design 2000; 11(4): 212-218.

7. Gold DT. The clinical impact of vertebral fractures: Quality of life in women with osteoporosis. Bone 1996; 18(3): 185S-189S.

8. SpinalSpecialties, inc. www.spinalspecialties. com/products /?product=74, (Accesado agosto, 2004).

9. Cook Inc. http://www.cookincorporated.com /products /needles/HPISY.html, Accesado agosto, 2004.

10. Parallax Medical, Inc. www.parallaxmedical.com/products /bone.htm. (Accesado agosto, 2004).

11. Márquez MM, Ferreyro IR. Sistema biomédico para vertebroplastia. XXVI Congreso Nacional de Ingeniería Biomédica, 2003.

12. Saaty TL. How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research. North-Holland, 1990; 48: 9-26.

13. Beynon M. An analysis of distributions of priority values from alternative comparison scales within AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, 2002; 140: 104-117.

14. Ngai EWT. Selection of web sites for online advertising using the AHP. Information and Management, Elsevier, 2003; 40: 233-242.

15. Xu S et al. Determining optimum edible films for kiwifruits using an analytical hierarchy process. Computers and Operation Research, Pergamon, 2003; 30: 877-889.

16. Saaty RW. The Analytic Hierarchy Process- What it is and How it is used. Mathl Modelling, Pergamon Journals Ltd, 1987; 9(3-5): 161-176.

17. Dodd FJ et al. A statistical Approach to Consistency in AHP. Mathl. Comput. Modelling, Pergamon, 1993; 18(6): 19-22.

18. Chu P, Liu J, Kuang-Han. Note on Consistency Ratio. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Pergamon, 2002; 35: 1077-1080.

19. Nyman J. Cost Value Requirements (en línea). Global Tester. http://www.globaltester.com/sp8/costvalue .html. (Accesado 26 de agosto de 2003) 2002.