Additive manufacturing, popularly known as 3D printing, is not new nor is its hype. It has promised gains in product optimization, cost and waste reduction, and a plethora of other noteworthy benefits. Some industries, most notably dentistry, have taken advantage of the technology and adopted it widely but others who stand to benefit tremendously have yet to. 

As a firm believer in the value-add, it has to offer, I must ask, why has it not spread further? In particular, why has it not spread into the world of medical devices, an application that stands to benefit greatly from the tech’s ability to make custom products? 

There are without a doubt a few good reasons. In fact, a recent edition of a leading orthotics and prosthetics magazine, O&P Edge, presents the perspective of various members of the said industry that have pioneered the adoption of 3D printing on this matter.

They refer to a need for education and increased awareness of technical details relating to 3D printing materials, capabilities, and so on, which is tied to another topic – the importance of developing design skills. They then mention the role of professional associations and the standards they could develop for guidance. 

Interestingly, they point out that many are satisfied with the methods established in the industry, and as one expert mentioned, this may be “because they don’t have to [change], they’re craftsmen and they’re good at their craft”. Unfortunately, poor patient adherence to their prescribed medical device makes me wonder: can the craft be improved? Are the needs of the patients truly being met? Can additive manufacturing technologies help reach this objective?

It bears pointing out that I consider the barriers to adoption mentioned above to be valid yet to also be the opinion of early adopters of 3D printing, i.e. the innovative and risk-taking folk – the pioneers. Their perspective is the product of who they are – innovators eager to test new tools, to tinker and assemble whole solutions themselves from scattered solutions made available by early players in the market. 

Furthermore, we may benefit from taking an innovation marketing perspective to add to that of medical professionals to investigate if it digs up insights on how to facilitate adoption by a broader user base – as inspired by the flagship book – “Crossing the Chasm” by Geoffrey Moore, for example. 

As such, the points discussed below take a step back from the medical perspective and investigate how we may convince the remaining majority to adopt 3D technologies. The points relate to the need for 3D printing enterprises to focus their efforts and to band together to create a whole set of products that will enable the technology to reach the masses. 

Be the big fish, in a small pond. 

Innovators and marketers must select a very specific market for their big aspirations. It does not suffice to market 3D printing as a technology anyone can use, for anything they may dream of. 

Defining a market goes beyond selecting an industry. There is a need to define the specific problem addressed and who this is affecting; what are their values, what do they care about/what do they not care about? For example, individuals needing to prototype may benefit from a different solution than those wanting an end-product manufacturing process. It is imperative that innovations be developed and optimized, as well as marketed in a way that serves the purpose for which it was acquired. 

Even within a given market, depending on the preferences of those adopting the technology, various approaches can be taken. As described in a previous article on approaches to custom-fitting orthotics, there are varying degrees of tech integration, with options of techniques that rely minimally on, yet nonetheless benefit from 3D printing and others that rely entirely on the tech. Hence, it must be acknowledged that there are varying degrees to which the tech can be adopted and thus, how much we can benefit from it in a given context.  

Making a blanket statement that the technology can serve any application is most often a gross exaggeration that leads to heightened expectations by a wide range of individuals. This not only leads to expectations that surpass the tech’s capabilities but will also inhibit the tech from specializing itself for a given application as the feedback of users pulls product development teams in different directions. 

HP entered the 3D printing market in 2016 and has quickly become a major stakeholder. Their Multi-Jet-Printing technology offers several benefits and has been employed by various industries. However, HP seems to have strategically focussed their developments on specific verticals where their printers offer the greatest value – ie the field of orthotics and prosthetics, and more specifically that of pedorthics. 

They have created a centralized workflow they call Arize that combines various processes involved in the practice of pedorthists; from equipment and software, to creating a digital file of the patients’ foot, to writing a prescription, ordering, manufacturing, and delivering the insole. 
As discussed in this article, they worked closely with their end-users to understand their pain points and developed a solution accordingly. The process of ordering a 3D printing insole would have traditionally involved several more steps, but the Arize platform simplifies it to ensure streamlined operations. While innovators may have wanted the individual solutions, the majority don’t and the focussing of HP’s efforts on a specific application has enabled them to develop a unique platform. 

Beyond product optimization, selecting a specific market enables the word of a successful product to spread through the network of individuals more easily. Although international conferences and the internet may lower the barriers to communication between professionals on different sides of the planet, word-of-mouth remains highly influential and marketing strategies must take this into account. 

It is important to establish trust between innovators and users. As many have stated before, “it doesn’t matter how much you know, what matters is how much you care”. Users want to see a commitment from innovators, they want to ensure that if they invest in technology, the potential issues that may arise will be taken care of and that the innovators will not simply pass to another market segment.

The takeaway here is that the ultimate goal is to establish your organization and its products as the market authority – to develop a highly tailored product that meets the needs of a user base that can spread by word-of-mouth among users. 

This process requires strategy and discipline. Picking a segment, in which efforts can be focussed on a specific, less guarded front, can have a greater potential for success. Yet this is not easy to abide by and strong discipline is necessary. 

Whole solutions.

Successful innovations, including their adoption and spread through the market to become the status quo, requires it be shaped around a specific problem – a pain point. By satisfying such a need – at a reasonable cost – value is created. 

This is enabled through what is called the value chain, a series of services or products that when combined appropriately solve a problem. Moore refers to the “whole product” as the set of solutions a specific individual needs access to. 

As such, we are poised to ask: what set of solutions are needed by orthotists and prosthetics to achieve their goal? As mentioned above though, there are different approaches that can be taken to custom-fit products using 3D printing, each with its own value chain. As such what sets of solutions are required? 

The whole product can either be accomplished in house by creating a one-stop-shop (which can be done for a very specific segment and problem, with a tremendous amount of resources, as demonstrated by the Arize platform offered by HP), or through partnerships between organizations that each offer different parts of the solution and are banded together through joined processes, which have historically also lead to mergers and acquisitions as the value of the partnerships solidify.  

Another company that has banded whole solutions together is another Silicon Valley-based company – Carbon. Known for their 3D printing technique called Digital Lights Synthesis and their numerous commercial products, such as the custom 3D printed CCM hockey helmet liner and the Adidas 4DFWD 3D printed shoe, Carbon is an industry leader. 

Their products range from 3D printers to post-processing equipment and from software to training programs. To ensure all can access their technology, they also offer a printing service or can partner with an outsourcing production center equipped with their printers. An interesting aspect of the Carbon offer is the payment plan they utilize. Rather than requesting a substantial upfront cost requiring substantial commitment from the client, they chose to function through a subscription model. 

They claim this leads to several advantages, including better maintenance and continuous improvements to the technology through remote updates. Overall, they have studied their market and understood the pain points of those trying to operate 3D printers. Through their line of products and services, it is becoming evident with the line of commercial products they are affiliated to that they are indeed crossing the chasm, if they have not already. 

Reflecting on the answers given in O&P Edge, I wonder if the whole product required by the individuals surveyed is the same as that for someone more hesitant and less likely to assemble the different pieces of the solution together. 

As described by Moore, early adopters of tech have different personas than the majority of users of a product. The latter relies on practical gains offered by the tech and needs the entire solution to be delivered – they search for established solutions (the big fish), and will wait for the competition to be established to identify the best, most well-supported course of action.  

As such, I believe there is a great need to further support the different steps and transition between them. But exactly what is needed? For a start, we must support the design process further! 

The medical professionals that contributed to the O&P Edge article point to design skill development as a strain on the adoption of 3D printing, but what if we were to remove this step from the process? Yet craftsmanship is a value held dear to these medical professionals and they may want to control the design process, whether it be through manual or digital processes.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Shapeshift 3D (@shapeshift3d)

As discussed in a previous article, there is a need to respect the value system established in an industry and we must not swim against its current. As such, the repetitive and tedious tasks of design could be automated, while the process of optimizing the product to meet the personal needs of a patient can be made the responsibility of the practitioner, through either semi-autonomous design, improved user interface, and/or through collaboration with a design firm.  

Alternatively, the manufacturing and post-processing of the product could be assigned to the orthotist’s office to leave some of the craft to them. Although points were made in the article that justifies outsourcing the production steps, the value-system of orthotists reminds us that there is a need to leave some of the craft in their hands. If the equipment was owned by every O&P office, then the issue of maintenance and upkeep would require greater support by the printer manufacturers – thus creating or fortifying a wing of services offered by these companies – one of maintenance and training. 

Alas, it will be critical that we remove the tedious steps of adjusting a design to fit the patient to maximize the practicality of solutions, and we should avoid having medical practitioners design the products from scratch. Where then is the middle ground?

The inadequate adherence to a prescribed device and plan serves as a signal that there are improvements to be made to the system and the products it puts out. Since there are massive functionality gains to be achieved through 3D printing and associated technologies, there is a need to facilitate its adoption. Innovators developing such solutions must take the “whole product” approach and ensure the process is complete while leaving enough craft on the table. 

Call it for what it is – disruptive.

3D printing and associated technologies are not “just a tool”. Sure, it is a tool in the sense that it helps to achieve your goal. Yet, it is revolutionizing the way in which this is accomplished by unlocking greater freedom of design and creativity, but also enabling new ways of operating. For example, as discussed in the O&P article, the use of scanning technologies can allow work on the go, changing how we operate with clients and cutting travel time and costs. As such, 3D printing in O&P is a disruptive innovation as it changes the way we behave, and even the way we think of what is possible.

The CCM Super Tacks hockey helmet is the first in the world to feature a custom-fit 3D printed liner. Composed of a lattice structure, it balances optimal mechanics, breathability and comfort, to address the literal and figurative pain points of previous helmet designs. Not only is it highly advanced and pushes the boundaries of performance equipment, but it also introduces new behaviors in the market. From the scan of the athletes head, to bespoke and just-in-time manufacturing, new needs are created with players joining to link together to form a new value chain.

For the 3D printed hockey helmet though, CCM was faced with limited scalability due to the time required to manually customize each helmet and thus restricted production to a few NHL players. With the challenge of scaling their highly complex product, they teamed up with software developer Shapeshift 3D to automate the custom-fitting process, and as such, is yet another example of the value of partnering to connect the value chain and facilitate the democratization of innovation. 

Unfortunately, many fear disruptive innovations. Associated with change, from a past that started with a long learning curve that over years of grit built up to success, to a fleeting sense of security. These difficulties are not inherent nor the fault of the innovation or to those adopting them, but they are the result of poor innovation marketing.

In closing, I am passionate about innovation and committed to addressing adoption in the medical sector. I am a fervent believer in designing for the user and acknowledge the importance of involving a variety of stakeholders.

About the Author:

Jacob Lavigne is a Ph.D. graduate from the program of Experimental Surgery at McGill University. His research interests include orthopedics and associated technologies (algorithm development, 3D printing/additive manufacturing, simulation, and targeted drug delivery) as well as innovation management and marketing practices. Lavigne previously held the position of community engagement manager at Shapeshift 3D, a software development firm empowering orthotists and prosthetists to create optimized products through the use of AI and 3D technologies. He also works as an independent innovation consultant working to facilitate the adoption of various technologies and the paradigm shift to personalized medicine. He achieves this through knowledge development and dissemination, partnership development, advocacy/lobbying, and product development.

Related Articles:

The Assembly line of 3D Printed Tissues: Considerations for Automating Tissue Fabrication

Designing and Equipping 3D Bioprinting Facilities

A Call to the Heart-A Perspective on the State of 3D Bioprinting of Cardiac Tissue

Control your Hydrogels for 3D Bioprinting

How AI and 3D Printing Enhance Crafting Custom Orthotics and Prosthetics

Now On Demand:

The post Crossing the 3D Printing Chasm: Bringing Optimization to the Masses appeared first on 3DHeals.

A review of the various approaches used for 3D printing custom fit orthotics and available software solutions. 

From bespoke shoe insoles to knee braces and from ski boots to cycling helmets, custom-fit products are becoming increasingly prevalent as they hold various benefits. While it was previously limited to the most exclusive products, mainly those for professional athletes, custom-fit is becoming increasingly democratized and integrated into commercially available products. 

For example, the medical practice has recognized the value of personalized care and of making tailor-made medical products such as orthotics and prosthetics shaped to the unique morphology of the patient. This is critical as these devices serve to correct pathology and proper fit is essential. 

Fortunately for the patients afflicted, custom products have become far more accessible and affordable over recent years thanks to advances in software and 3D printing. However, there remain major barriers to mass adoption of custom 3D printed solutions and the most cumbersome remain automation and production scaling, which falls mainly to software. 

The manufacturing of custom-fit orthotics and prosthetics involves a wide range of professionals, including but not limited to skilled designers, software experts, and additive manufacturing experts. Democratizing mass customization will require that we synchronize and scale the efforts of these professionals, which as in other industries, can be achieved through the development of more streamlined and automated processes. 

Approaches to custom-fit

There are several approaches that can be taken to create custom-fit products, and which is used depends on a few factors, principally speed, resources, and optimization capabilities. 

A primordial step to creating a custom-fit 3D printed product is the digitization of the body. Subsequently, various approaches can be taken, as described below, to generate a custom-fit product based on the 3D file. Software options are numerous, they include but are not limited to those presented below. 

1. Printed Twin approach:

The more rudimentary approach is using the digital file of the patient to 3D print a morphologically identical tangible replica. This can then be used as a copy of the body part around which the final product is shaped, for example using a plastic sheath warmed to become pliable. 

This process is used in the manufacturing of bespoke prosthetics as well as custom shoes, the former of which uses a replica known as a “last”. This process holds various benefits over the previous method of using plaster casts to get a negative of the patient, which would then be used to mold the replica of the patient, a process that is often messy, time-consuming, and requires the patient to be on site. 

Software options:

1. Digiscan 
2. Creaform  
3. Comb3D 
4. TechMed3D
5. Taika3D

2. Augment approach:

Further digitalization of this process involves the virtual augmentation of the 3D file of the patient to create a partial contour of the body part. This outline can then be exported to a 3D printer, resulting in the final product. This approach reduces manual labor compared to the previous method.

The process creates a uniform layer around the limb and can be useful for immobilizing limbs following a fracture, for example. However, the downside to this approach is the fact that the product is often not optimized – a simple uniform layer over the skin surface is created. 

Yet, if the technician has enough 3D design experience, the file can be manually edited to improve the design. Additional software, known as Topology Optimization Software, can be used to edit the shape of the outline (filling the volume with a lattice or Voronoi pattern to lightweight the product for example), to create variable thickness throughout the device, or to integrate holes for straps or other features. 

Ultimately though, the device is simply an outline of the limb with minimal optimization, which must be manually integrated if the technician has adequate experience with design software. 

The augmentation approach and subsequent design optimization steps can be accomplished in two ways: either manually or through automation software. It is important to note though that both are limited in terms of optimization and/or speed. The designer may want to integrate special features which require manual intervention and thus increase the time required; and alternatively, they may want to automate, but are limited in the optimization of function and/or form as the product remains a simple augmentation of the body part surface.

Manual Augmentation Software options: 

1. 3D Systems 
2. MeshMixer
3. Blender
4. Rodin4D

Automated Augmentation Software options: 

1. Spentys
2. Twikit
3. Artus 3D
4. Mecuris

Topology Optimization Software options: 

1. Carbon – Design Engine can be used to add an optimized lattice to a final product
2. nTopology – topology optimization software 

3. Custom-fit CAD approach:

The most advanced and ideal approach is one that enables optimization of the function and form of the product. It involves the use of CAD software to create an intricate and optimized product – it may include special features such as hinges and even differentiating patterns (ex. logos) to be incorporated in the design. 

Custom-fit automation software can then be used to morph the product to the patient’s digital twin. Note that the process of morphing a complex CAD file can be done manually but requires substantial time and expertise due to the need to respect the intricacy of features. 

Alternatively, other software can custom-fit the product but would deform the functional and differentiating features. 

This is where the most advanced custom-fit automation software comes into play – this branch of software enables all the feature to be kept consistent through the morphing to give a custom-fit product with no compromise to the optimization of form and function. 

The perceived downside to this approach is the need for CAD design skills or high cost of having it outsourced to a design firm. It is important to note that among the two most advanced processes, although you can optimize the product using the Augment approach, the modifications must be repeated manually for each file. 

An improvement to this is having a single, highly optimized file, that is then pushed through a custom-fit software that automates the morphing while respecting the intricacies of the design. 

Software options: 

1. Shapeshift 3D
2. Trinckle
3. Anatoscope

Key metrics comparison

There are various reasons why an orthotist or prosthetist would use a particular approach. Digital transformation is often a gradual process, and incremental adoption of technologies can be a wise decision when resources are limited. 

Nonetheless, as per the table below, the Custom-fit CAD approach is quickest, creates the most optimized products, and does not require substantially more resources than other techniques, although it requires the acquisition of new equipment and training to use it. 

It is quickest at it displaces the time requirements to product development, after which the product is custom-fitted automatically per patient. 

It is most optimal as it can integrate complex functional and aesthetic features most consistently from patient to patient. While the features can be integrated using the augmentation strategy, consistency may lack.   

Lastly, it is least resource intensive as it, again, displaces the time and cost commitment to when the initial product is designed. Furthermore, the manufacturing of the end-product can often be out-sourced due to the cost of the additive manufacturing equipment required. 

Augmentation is ranked as requiring more resources as a trained technician is required for each device to be generated, whereas for the custom-fit approach, only quality control by said technician is needed. This rating assumes the medical professional has not yet acquired equipment for another customization approach (ex. is starting their career). 

Important considerations 

Regulations:

There are several important regulatory considerations to be taken when developing orthotics and prosthetics. While the tools used to create these devices is not regulated or standardized, there are efforts underway by associations like the Association for Orthotics and Prosthetics of America (AOPA) to develop guidelines/standards. In the meantime, it is important to acknowledge the importance of having an appropriately certified/licensed medical professional prescribing and overviewing the care of the patients, as recommended by the American Association for Orthotists and Prosthetists (AAOP). 

Orthotics and prosthetics are ultimately medical products that can cause considerable harm if not prescribed, distributed, and/or used properly – proper training is key to mitigating risks. Although 3D printing is indeed democratizing access to these life-changing devices, it is essential that this democratization be done by those with the required training and experience.   

Furthermore, there are several regulations in place to ensure the safety of the data being handled. Compliance to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) are required. 

CAD training:

It is important to note that there are considerable learning curves associated with a change in the approach taken to create custom-fit products. Not only is new equipment required, but new skills as well.  

While a growing number of educational institutions are adopting curricula that introduce students to 3D design, there remains a need to fine-tune design skills over time. As mentioned above, the most optimized process requires the development of a product CAD file. This is a laborious process that requires substantial knowledge and time. 

It is recommended that orthotics and prosthetists learn to use design tools, yet not all have the time and resources to do so. While the educational system continues to adapt curricula, design services are available to clinicians interested in designing their own product(s). 

While these services may be associated with a cost, the benefit (patient wellbeing, business viability, etc.) of a fully optimized and just-in-time product should motivate practitioners to strive for this approach. It is primordial that patient care is optimized, but so is business viability. 

Conflict of interest disclosure: The author of this article declares that they receive monetary compensation from Shapeshift 3D.  

About the Author:

Jacob Lavigne is a Ph.D. graduate from the program of Experimental Surgery at McGill University. His research interests include orthopedics and associated technologies (algorithm development, 3D printing/additive manufacturing, simulation, and targeted drug delivery) as well as innovation management and marketing practices. Lavigne currently holds the position of community engagement manager at Shapeshift 3D, a software development firm empowering orthotists and prosthetists to create optimized products through the use of AI and 3D technologies. He also works as an independent innovation consultant working to facilitate the adoption of various technologies and the paradigm shift to personalized medicine. He achieves this through knowledge development and dissemination, partnership development, advocacy/lobbying, and product development.

Related Articles: 

How AI and 3D Printing Enhance Crafting Custom Orthotics and Prosthetics

Interview with Brent Wright: 3D Printed Orthotics and Prosthetics

3DHEALS2020 Session 8. Healthcare 3D Printing In Space, NASA, ISS

3DHEALS2020 Session 20. Regulatory/ Legal Challenges

3D Printed Orthotics and Prosthetics

The post 3D Printing Custom-Fit Orthotics: Guide appeared first on 3DHeals.

Crafting custom orthotics and prosthetics (O&P) is hard work – it balances art, science, and business, to ultimately offer life-changing care to those who need it most. While technologies that facilitate this process have been developed, hesitancy in adopting them remains. As this pattern is prevalent in other industries as well, reflection on why this is the case can illuminate paths toward greater tech adoption and ultimately, user satisfaction. Here, I argue that 3D scanning, 3D printing, and artificial intelligence (AI) for 3D modeling, offer many benefits and do not pose a threat to the craft of O&P. 

The takeaway is that although the tools have changed, the craft remains. Yet, before trusting tech, we can look at other cases where a craft was threatened and yet persisted. As we will see, this requires us to look within, isolate, and defend our core values – our identity. 

Lessons from Hennessy

How does Hennessy relate to prosthetics? Both require a high level of craftsmanship yet have benefitted or had the potential to benefit from cutting-edge technology, all the while, without losing their way. 

The identity of the craftsman has been defined over decades – by sets of values that have stood the test of time. As an article by Wired describes, it is the strong identity of companies like Hennessy that makes them able to embrace and adapt to new technologies and value systems, while staying true to themselves. 

Their use of data and AI may help in the blending process for example, but decision-making falls in the hands of the master taster, who ensures quality and considers other factors, for example, those associated with production feasibility. A product judged by human taste can be controlled by nothing but that – human taste. 

Nonetheless, as organizations debate the adoption of certain tech – they should remember “there is no tech for tech’s sake”. Some will tinker out of curiosity, but the majority need it to be practical and aligned to their value system. 

Tools – not threats

There are a variety of different paths to creating custom orthotics and prosthetics. The most advanced approach involves using 3D scanning technologies to enable prosthetists to generate a digital file of the patient, around which a product can be morphed digitally, then 3D printed. 

Furthermore, the recent advent of AI-powered design software enables repetitive and tedious manipulations to be automated, allowing the medical professional to focus on improving design and performance. Some of these gains will only be attainable however if we embrace certain technologies. 

I believe in this process and support its adoption as it does not go against the value system of O&P and rather, builds upon their value system; (i) the wellbeing of, and connection with their patients, (ii) their craft, and (iii) business viability, which I previously wrote on here. 

Medical care depends on so much more than what is accomplished by tech; patient care is gravitating toward the greater connection between the caregiver and their patient, and this can only be achieved by humans. Hennessy requires the sense of taste of master tasters, while medicine requires a human connection, that which cannot be replaced by technology.   

Optimizing and democratizing the craft 

As AI can automate mundane and repetitive tasks in the digital design process, it can liberate time for the highly trained medical professional to focus on improving features or to simply produce more units, while ensuring consistency. As such, techniques gathered through generations of practice can be further improved upon and democratized by allowing for greater production capacity, essentially eternalizing the craft. 

Nonetheless, the optimal product may require manual interventions during the design process in some cases. Hence, various design software workflows can be developed as semi-autonomous to allow for those holding tacit knowledge to integrate their modifications. 

A multi-layered solution

Novel manufacturing processes also hold various advantages. In essence, rapid prototyping and more specifically, 3D printing (also known as additive manufacturing) for custom orthotics and prosthetics allows for more rapid iteration as well as for more inspiration and client input to be integrated without impacting manufacturing feasibility. 

Furthermore, it can allow for the incorporation of intricate designs that were not possible to produce previously and can be done so with little, if any, added effort in the production process. 

As described by Avi Reichenthal here, the perennial nature of craft can be seen in various areas, for example in the work of Italian designers such as Selvaggia Armani, who applies 3D printing to create beautiful products that are the embodiment of Italian style.  

In another anecdote, Reichenthal refers to his grandfather – a cobbler. While the production of shoes was taken over by large corporations that could afford the efficiency maximizing machinery, 3D printing now offered an opportunity to return their entire production to local artisans, offering custom and highly complex products at viable costs. In this sense, 3D printing has in fact returned the craft to the craftsman. 

3D printing is not a threat, it is simply a new craftsmanship tool. By expanding the possibilities, this technology in fact augments the craft!

Defending the values

To further engrain the value system and more specifically the care of patients, efforts are underway to develop standards for 3D printed orthotics and prosthetics and identify gaps in the research to improve them. 

As mentioned in a recent edition of the O&P Almanac, this is exactly what the Association for Orthotists and Prosthetists of America (AOPA) is doing in collaboration with ISO and a variety of experts. These will increase the ability of the practice to benefit from the economics, design freedom, and prototyping abilities of tech while minimizing negative consequences for the safety of patients. 

Furthermore, the American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists (AAOP) just recently published a position statement stating “3D printed orthoses and prostheses should be administered by a Certified/Licensed Orthotist/Prosthetist” and listing recommendations to place the safety of the patient as a priority in the adoption of 3D printing.   

These actions demonstrate the industry has leadership and medical professionals that hold this value system dear, and as such, that tech offers a minimal threat to, but rather, augments the craft. 

In summary, the establishment of a value system in O&P will allow the trade to benefit from technology without threatening its identity; it liberates the practice of orthotists and prosthetists by offering a highly creative platform on which medical devices can be optimized to benefit the patients with no compromise to business viability. This is of course assuming that the right tools be used at the right time, and only when truly needed – for again – there is no tech just for tech’s sake.  

The craft is dead, long live the craft! 

About the Author:

Jacob Lavigne is a Ph.D. graduate from the program of Experimental Surgery at McGill University. His research interests include orthopedics and associated technologies (algorithm development, 3D printing/additive manufacturing, simulation, and targeted drug delivery) as well as innovation management and marketing practices. Lavigne currently holds the position of community engagement manager at Shapeshift 3D, a software development firm empowering orthotists and prosthetists to create optimized products through the use of AI and 3D technologies. He also works as an independent innovation consultant working to facilitate the adoption of various technologies and the paradigm shift to personalized medicine. He achieves this through knowledge development and dissemination, partnership development, advocacy/lobbying, and product development.

Related Articles:

Interview with Brent Wright: 3D Printed Orthotics and Prosthetics

3DHEALS2020 Session 8. Healthcare 3D Printing In Space, NASA, ISS

3DHEALS2020 Session 20. Regulatory/ Legal Challenges

3D Printed Orthotics and Prosthetics

The post How AI and 3D Printing Enhance Crafting Custom Orthotics and Prosthetics appeared first on 3DHeals.