Search results for: Aly Elzahaby

Authors: Assem Sallam, Aly Elzahaby, Ahmed Makled, Mohamed Khalil

Abstract:

Change in design parameters of launch vehicle affects its overall flight path trajectory. In this paper, several design parameters are introduced to study their effect. Selected parameters are the launch vehicle mass, which is presented in the form of payload mass, the maximum allowable angle of attack the launch vehicle can withstand, the flight path angle that is predefined for the launch vehicle second stage, the required inclination and its effect on the launch azimuth and finally by changing the launch pad coordinate. Selected design parameters are studied for their effect on the variation of altitude, ground range, absolute velocity and the flight path angle. The study gives a general mean of adjusting the design parameters to reach the required launch vehicle performance.

Keywords: launch vehicle azimuth, launch vehicle trajectory, launch vehicle payload, launch pad location

Procedia PDF Downloads 311

Authors: Ahmed Shaboub, Yusuf Jasim Althawadi, Shadi Alaa Abdelaal, Mohamed Hussein Abdalla, Hatem Amr Elzahaby, Mohamed Mohamed, Hazem S. Ghaith, Ahmed Negida

Abstract:

Objectives: We aimed to compare the safety and outcomes of the minimally invasive approaches versus conventional sternotomy procedures for aortic valve replacement. Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. We ran an electronic search of PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify the relevant published studies. Data were extracted and pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio (RR) using StataMP version 17 for macOS. Results: Forty-one studies with a total of 15,065 patients were included in this meta-analysis (minimally invasive approaches n=7231 vs. conventional sternotomy n=7834). The pooled effect size showed that minimally invasive approaches had lower mortality rate (RR 0.76, 95%CI [0.59 to 0.99]), intensive care unit and hospital stays (SMD -0.16 and -0.31, respectively), ventilation time (SMD -0.26, 95%CI [-0.38 to -0.15]), 24-h chest tube drainage (SMD -1.03, 95%CI [-1.53 to -0.53]), RBCs transfusion (RR 0.81, 95%CI [0.70 to 0.93]), wound infection (RR 0.66, 95%CI [0.47 to 0.92]) and acute renal failure (RR 0.65, 95%CI [0.46 to 0.93]). However, minimally invasive approaches had longer operative time, cross-clamp, and bypass times (SMD 0.47, 95%CI [0.22 to 0.72], SMD 0.27, 95%CI [0.07 to 0.48], and SMD 0.37, 95%CI [0.20 to 0.45], respectively). There were no differences between the two groups in blood loss, endocarditis, cardiac tamponade, stroke, arrhythmias, pneumonia, pneumothorax, bleeding reoperation, tracheostomy, hemodialysis, or myocardial infarction (all P>0.05). Conclusion: Current evidence showed higher safety and better operative outcomes with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement compared to the conventional approach. Future RCTs with long-term follow-ups are recommended.

Keywords: aortic replacement, minimally invasive, sternotomy, mini-sternotomy, aortic valve, meta analysis

Procedia PDF Downloads 120