To conduct hypothermia/rewarming comparison experiments (conventional method (heating pad) versus radiofrequency induction coil system) with a detailed analysis of collected serum and to investigate the limits of usefulness of radiofrequency energy to treat profound hypothermia. Probing the useful limits of radiofrequency resuscitation consisted of experiments with more severe hypothermia followed by radiofrequency treatment.
| Exposure | Parameters |
|---|---|
| Exposure 1: 13.56 MHz |
|
experiments were done i) with a heating pad ii) with a RF coil
| Frequency | 13.56 MHz |
|---|---|
| Type |
| Exposure source |
|
|---|---|
| Chamber | 60 cm x 60 cm x 129 cm acrylic box |
| Setup | heating coil: 13 turns of copper tubing wound around a plastic pipe (36 cm long, 25.4 cm diameter); a seven-turn primary winding wound around the central portion insulated from the secondary winding by a 0.16 cm thick layer of plastic; a cylindrical aluminum shield with a diameter of 48 cm placed over the coil; inner plastic pipe with a diameter of 20.3 cm maintained minimum spacing between the monkey's body and the coil |
| Measurand | Value | Type | Method | Mass | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SAR | 9 W/kg | - | calculated | whole body | - |
The previously observed postprocedure rise in serum enzymes (see Publikation 5818) was again found, with no statistically significant difference in the time course of serum enzyme levels between the two treatments for comparable durations of hypothermia (enzyme level determinations are a primary tool to assess possible internal tissue injury). There is no evidence in the blood results to suggest the existence of hazards other than that of possible thermal damage. Radiofrequency energy was successful in resuscitating the profoundly hypothermic subjects without discernible harmful effects.
This website uses cookies to provide you the best browsing experience. By continuing to use this website you accept our use of cookies.
