Capacitive proximity sensors (CPSs) are ubiquitous because of their simple design, low cost and low consumption. Capacitive displacement sensing, as one of the three sensing modalities, works for long distance and can be unitized to measure more physical quantities compared with capacitive volume and deformation sensing. In this paper, we firstly introduce the concept of capacitive displacement sensing. After that, we present applications of capacitive displacement sensing under three broad categories: distance measurements, indirect measurements, and the applications applied in smart environments. Finally, we discuss the challenges and possible solutions for CPSs development. We show that both the detection range and accuracy of CPS can be improved by multi-sensor fusion, and the application scenarios can be extensive through machine/deep learning approaches. We aim to provide a comprehensive, and state-of-theart review of the capacitive displacement sensing, and inspire more researchers and developers to find wide application perspectives.INDEX TERMS Capacitive proximity sensor (CPS), capacitive displacement sensing, distance measurement, indirect measurement, smart environment.
BackgroundThe objective of the study is to provide evidence for selecting the best treatment approach for severe flail chest by comparing surgical and conservative treatments.MethodsThis is a retrospective study in which 32 patients with severe flail chest were treated in the Fujian Provincial Hospital (China) between July 2007 and July 2012 with surgical internal rib fixation (n = 17) or conservative treatments (n = 15). Mechanical ventilation time, intensive care unit (ICU) stay time, pulmonary infection, antibiotic treatment duration, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) scores 7 and 14 days after trauma, rate of tracheostomy, and rate of endotracheal re-intubation were compared.ResultsOne patient died in the conservative treatment group. Better short-term outcomes were observed in the surgery group, such as total mechanical ventilation time (10.5 ± 3.7 vs. 13.7 ± 4.4 days, P = 0.03), ICU stay (15.9 ± 5.0 vs. 19.6 ± 5.0 days, P = 0.05), pulmonary infection rate (58.8 % vs. 93.3 %, P = 0.02), and APACHE II scores on the 14th day (6.5 ± 3.8 vs. 10.1 ± 4.7, P = 0.02). No difference was observed in the therapeutic time of antibiotics, rate of tracheostomy, and the rate of endotracheal re-intubation between the two groups.ConclusionsResults suggest that internal fixation surgery resulted in better outcomes in the management of severe flail chest compared with conservative treatments.
Purpose. This study was aimed at investigating the effect of esmolol on tissue perfusion and the clinical prognosis of patients with severe sepsis. Materials and Methods. One hundred fifty-one patients with severe sepsis were selected and divided into the esmolol group (n = 75) or the control group (n = 76), who received conventional antiseptic shock treatment. The esmolol group received a continuous infusion of esmolol via a central venous catheter, and their heart rate (HR) was maintained at 70–100 bpm over 72 hours. Results. The HR of all patients reached the target level within 72 hours of treatment for both groups. The effect of esmolol on PvaCO2 was only significant at 48 hours (P < 0.05). ScvO2 increased in the esmolol group and decreased in the control group (P < 0.01). Lac showed a linear downward trend over the treatment time, but the reduction was more significant in the control group at 48 hours (P < 0.05) between the two groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a significantly shorter duration of mechanical ventilation in the esmolol group than in the control group (P < 0.05). Conclusions. Esmolol reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation in patients with severe sepsis, with no significant effect on circulatory function or tissue perfusion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.