Table 1
From: The design, development, and evaluation of a prototypic, prosthetic venous valve
A Antegrade intra-design variability as indicated by evluation of duplicate prototypes from the FL 2.50 mm design. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | SUBR | STBR | SUAF | STAF | ||
Device | Resistance (mmHg·min/L) | EOA (cm2) | AE (mJ) | Resistance (mmHg·min/L) | EOA (cm2) | AE (mJ) |
FL 2.50A | 0.508 ± 0.041 | 1.18 ± 0.020 | 74.6 ± 5.12 | 0.878 ± 0.065 | 1.14 ± 0.018 | 78.3 ± 5.67 |
FL 2.50B | 0.389 ± 0.046* | 1.23 ± 0.024* | 64.6 ± 5.00* | 1.14 ± 0.208* | 1.14 ± 0.045 | 92.1 ± 4.14* |
Change | 0.119 | 0.05 | 10.0 | 0.262 | 0.00 | 13.8 |
* p < 0.05 versus FL 2.50A | ||||||
B Retrograde intra-design variability as indicated by evaluation of duplicate prototypes from the FL 2.50 mm design. | ||||||
| Â | STBR | Â | Â | Â | Â | |
Device | Regurgitation (mL) | Percent Reflux (%) | REL (mJ) | Energy Retention (%) | Â | Â |
FL 2.50A | 11.0 ± 0.258 | 35.8 ± 1.63 | 9.55 ± 0.078 | 87.1 ± 1.18 |  |  |
FL 2.50B | 7.82 ± 1.17* | 27.6 ± 5.10* | 4.95 ± 1.44* | 92.2 ± 2.77* |  |  |
Change | 3.18 | 8.20 | 4.60 | 5.10 | Â | Â |
| Â | STAF | Â | Â | Â | Â | |
FL 2.50A | 2.19 ± 0.536 | 6.98 ± 1.71 | 0.400 ± 0.177 | 99.5 ± 0.227 |  |  |
FL 2.50B | 6.06 ± 1.30* | 17.8 ± 3.58* | 3.02 ± 1.21* | 96.7 ± 1.20* |  |  |
Change | 3.87 | 10.8 | 2.62 | 2.80 | Â | Â |
* p < 0.05 versus FL 2.50A | Â | Â | ||||