A week ago, we successfully concluded our event focusing on 3D printing (and 3D technologies in general) in the orthotics and prosthetics industry. This is one of the most critical topics that defines our vision and achievements in healthcare 3D printing, and therefore 3DHEALS events revisit this annually. For our 2024 version, our unique expert panel covered almost every body part in the O&P industry. The speakers included clinicians, industrialists, marketers, and startup founders. Each speaker brought their unique journeys (often measured in decades), perspectives, and wishlist to the conversation. What is also worth mentioning was our audience for the live event. Our analytics dashboard showed surprisingly strong results from India, Denmark, and Canada, in addition to our US audience, among 40+ countries. We also had one of the highest percentages of clinicians signed up for the event, 15%, as opposed to typically less than 10%. (Your prosthetists care! )The beauty of the 3DHEALS panel is that it is a mix of structured education in a relatively short period (15 minutes or so) and organic reactions and conversations among the audience. I want to thank all of the speakers, as well as a very engaging audience, for participating in this event. This blog contains my thoughts after the event. Frankly, I felt a bit out-of-date during the virtual event because there were so many advancements since I last reviewed the industry. Therefore, this blog contains my opinions, which are not necessarily the truth, and I am open to critiques.

Sustainability (Money) First.

Many don’t prioritize money in work, especially in the healthcare industry, where we prioritize patient benefits over pocketbooks. While that is the right attitude, a realistic understanding of the economics of 3D printing adaptation is critical to building a sustainable clinical practice and business that will benefit more people for longer. Digital transformation takes a lot of analysis, planning, and forecasting. Different geographies, patient demographics, payor mix, reimbursement pathways, and other economic environments determine how a clinic or business adapts to the technology. Fortunately, many 3D printing vendors (such as HP, Inc.) have done much of the homework and approached their potential customers with data and charts to make such analysis easier. Nowadays, I doubt a conversation about 3D printing capex expenditures can start without a spreadsheet. The goal is clear: a sustainable pathway for long-term digital adoption for the masses and, ultimately, a complete replacement of traditional O&P practices. It is less about selling a printer and more about promoting a concept, a vision, and a smooth digital workflow that will increase our productivity by 10x.

Cooperation Is the Key.

Once upon a time, I fondly witnessed heated debates on EBM (Electron Beam Melting) versus SLM (Selective Laser Melting), which I suspect is still ongoing. While some of our speakers are obvious experts in specific 3D printing technologies (MJF, SLS, FDM, to name a few), there was a strong sense of cooperation. The mutual understanding is that this is not a zero-sum game, and everyone could create an excellent business case for the right patient and clinic. This is an early-stage industry, and 99% of the market is still up for grabs. Therefore, the more immediate threat to survival is not a particular technique or machine manufacturer but common enemies like a lack of next-generation education, more accessible or updated reimbursement pathways, and sustainable business practices. This sense of cooperation will serve the industry well for the immediate future.

Digital Transformation On Demand

Software is essential (for 3D printing). Some obvious benefits include increasing productivity (especially in terms of personalization of devices), increasing access to better practices, and quicker product differentiation by embedding unique design advantages (mechanical properties, lightweight, manufacturing scalability, etc.). When we just founded 3DHEALS, I frequently heard complaints that clinical people had to adapt to industrial solutions for healthcare use because there was a lack of healthcare-specific 3D printing software solutions. That landscape is rapidly changing in the O&P industry and the medical and dental sectors. More and more larger companies are doubling down on focusing on healthcare-industry-specific software. Proteor, a 100+-year-old Frech O&P company (a company I did not know before our last event), is now a leading 3D printing software provider with a decent US market share in 3D printed devices. This ambition was there 20 years ago. This tells me the probability of O&P moving away from digital transformation is nearly zero, and those not using this should catch up. Something parallel to the dental and hearing aids industry and the orthopedic implant space.

The other digital transformation is happening in the startup landscape. Icarus Medical Innovation focuses on improving knee osteoarthritis care. While it uses 3D printing as core manufacturing technology, the company invested early and heavily in software, including a patient-facing iPhone-based 3D scanning app, and automated the device’s design process. This shift of emphasis on optimizing the software to improve the workflow and bottom line is becoming increasingly popular. Buy a half million machine first, or a 50K software tool to increase half a million dollar efficiency? You do the math. This makes sense the many OEMs are also increasingly acquiring software startups and then re-offer these as a bundle to their customers.

2025 Forecasts:

Based on the final remarks of our speakers, here are some 2025 predictions for 3D printed O&P, and it would be fun to revisit these predictions by the end of next year:

• More clarified CTP code, reimbursement pathway for 3D printed O&P products
• New in-office, smaller footprint industry-quality 3D printers using a variety of techniques such as SLS
• New material selections (including metamaterials) for 3D-printed O&P devices

What do you predict?

Email me here: jennychen@3dheals.com

You can now watch this recording on-demand for a few weeks until December 12th (when we host our next event).  Please take a look at the instructions below. After Dec 12th, you can find this recording for a fee on 3dheals.com. For those with short attention spans, we regularly publish highlights of the events on our YouTube channel.  The audio recording will also be available on our “The Lattice” podcast in a few days for more auditory-oriented people.  

Related Links:

Interview with Evan Eckersley: Icarus Medical Innovations

Interview with Drew Meyer: 3D Printing Orthotics and Prosthesis

Interview with Melanie Shelton: 3D printing adoption in O&P

Interview with Brent Wright: 3D Printed Orthotics and Prosthetics
Interview with Chris Baschuk: Partial Hand Prosthetics

3D Printed Orthotics and Prosthetics (On Demand, 2024)

3D Printing for O&P (On Demand 2023)

Biomaterials for 3D Printing Bioprinting (On Demand, 2024)

Past event recordings

The post 3DP for O&P: Are You Left Behind? 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.

This is a video recording from the actual virtual fundraise event on June 5th, 2020. This recording will be available to the public until September 5th, 2020. Full conference recordings can be purchased here.

The World Health Organization and the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics estimates that 80% of the world’s amputees live in developing countries, yet only 5% have access to proper prosthetic care. There are many reasons that amputees cannot access this care, including high costs, lack of infrastructure to produce prosthetic devices, and lack of trained clinicians. The Victoria Hand Project (VHP) has a mission to provide low-cost prosthetic and orthotic care to individuals in resource-poor areas who would not otherwise have access. VHP is working in 8 developing countries, and is currently expanding to remote and under-served areas of North America.

 Presentation Title: 

3D Printed Prosthetics and Orthotics for Under-served Communities
Presentation Description: The Victoria Hand Project (VHP) is a Canadian not-for-profit organization with a mission to provide low-cost prosthetic and orthotic care to individuals who otherwise would not have access. VHP does this by partnering with clinical professionals and 3D printing experts to manufacture these prosthetic and orthotic devices in resource-poor areas. With a combination of 3D scanning and 3D printing, VHP is able to produce custom-made, highly-functional prosthetic arms, to help amputees regain function to help in their daily lives.  As well, VHP is currently trialing 3D printed scoliosis braces for children. VHP is working in 8 developing countries and is expanding to remote and under-served areas of North America.

Relevant Podcast:

Relevant Articles:

A Helping Hand to Those in Need—Improving the World with 3D Printing

Interview: Dr. Nick Dechev, Associate Professor in the Faculty of Engineering, and is presently Director of the Biomedical Engineering Program

3D Printing Low-Cost Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices

The post Fundraise for Victoria Hand Project (Video) 🗓 appeared first on 3DHeals.

Nick Dechev received his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Toronto, Canada, in 2004, and joined the University of Victoria in 2005.  He is currently an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Engineering and is presently Director of the Biomedical Engineering Program. Dr. Dechev’s research program involves biomedical system design with application areas centered on advanced hand prosthesis and bio-sensor design.  These areas include 3D printing of hand prosthesis, implantable sensor design for the acquisition of bio-signals, and wireless power transfer technology for implantable sensors. These projects aim at developing better methods for the control of advanced hand prosthesis.  He is also the Executive Director of the Victoria Hand Project, a non-profit dedicated to providing hand prostheses to amputees in need in developing countries. Dr. Dechev will be a speaker at the #3DHEALS2020.

Jenny: When was the first encounter you had with 3D printing? What was that experience like?

Nick: First encounter was 16 years ago with a stereolithography system. It was a huge machine, and cost around half a million dollars! It made an impressive prototype part about the size of a cup made of polycarbonate, but it was expensive. The more recent encounter was with FDM (Fused Deposition Modelling) about 7 years ago in the laboratories at the University of Victoria. The FDM system really amazed me, since the machine was only around $6000, and even though the parts produced were very coarse (thick layers) and brittle, I saw the potential given the low cost.

Jenny: What inspired you to start your journey in 3D printing ?

Nick: The journey for the Victoria Hand Project started as a research project. That research project, in turn, was started by my personal motivation to help create technologies for people with health and disability issues.

Jenny: Who inspired you the most along this journey in 3D printing (bio-printing/bio-fabrication)? This can be a mentor, a patient, a celebrity, anyone basically. You can name more than one as well.
Nick: My inspiration comes from various people I work with, who push the edge of technological advancement, including many colleagues at the University of Victoria. As well, the incredibly talented and dedicated team of Range of Motion Project, headed by David Krupa, CPO, and Eric Neufeld, CPO.

Jenny: What motivates you the most for your work?
Nick: As a design engineer, I enjoy cross-mixing technologies, to enable/create new possibilities. Technologies all build upon each other, like a set of inter-linked pieces. Connecting these together, and sometimes creating new technology from scratch, is exciting and drives my work and research.

Jenny: What is/are the biggest obstacle(s) in your line of work? If you have conquered them, what were your solutions?
Nick: Finding enough talented and motivated people! Since Victoria Hand Project is a non-profit, this task is even more challenging. Monetary incentives are not the motivation for recruitment, which is a hurdle.  Solutions for this are various.  Finding people who will donate their time and experience may mean: alignment of mutual interests, providing knowledge, training, and experience to them, providing recognition of their efforts, or various other means.

Jenny: What do you think is (are) the biggest challenge(s) in 3D Printing/bio-printing? What do you think the potential solution(s) is (are)?
Nick: Materials, Materials, Materials! The robotics and machinery of 3D printers are well developed and are already phenomenally low cost. Its time for major advances in the materials used for 3D printing, to improve strength, durability, and other properties.  Also, its time to move beyond just 3D prototyping, into limited-run (low batch) fabrication of end-use products.  That’s exactly what the medical industry needs.

Jenny: If you are granted three wishes by a higher being, what would they be?
Nick:
a. A sustainable world, with food, water, and resources for everyone
b. World peace
c. A seat on a mission to Mars 🙂

Jenny: What advice would you give to a smart driven college student in the “real world”? What bad advice you heard should they ignore?
Nick:
a.Take many calculated risks early on in your career, when you have little to lose.
b.Share your ideas with others to get valuable feedback. There is way more to gain by getting early feedback on your idea, than worrying about someone stealing the idea.

Jenny: What were/was the best investment you made in 3D printing/bio-printing/bio-fabrication?
Nick: FDM printing technology. Its low-cost, durable, easily serviceable hardware, works under various conditions and produces field ready parts.

Jenny: What was/is the biggest risk you took in your career?
Nick: Branching into new areas of research where I previously have zero experience. This has led to some of my biggest successes.

Jenny: What do you enjoy in your spare time? What are you passionate about outside of your work/3d printing?
Nick: Technology design and creation. Its blend of my work and personal interests.

Jenny: What is your favorite quote? Why?

Nick: “Just do it” by Nike. With so many daily tasks, there are 100 reasons not to do something important that needs to be done. Find your priority and “just do it!”

Jenny: What does the word “3DHEALS” mean to you? =)

Nick: 3D printing enabling healthcare and medicine.

The post Interview: Dr. Nick Dechev, Associate Professor in the Faculty of Engineering, and is presently Director of the Biomedical Engineering Program appeared first on 3DHeals.

Want to write a piece for 3DHEALS Expert Corner? Email us: info@3dheals.com

In many developing countries, amputees do not have access to a usable prosthetic device. Often times, there is a major lack of resources and conventional prosthetics are too expensive for amputees to afford. The Victoria Hand Project (VHP) makes low-cost, 3D printed prosthetic devices and works with local communities to get proper prosthetic care to the people that need it.

Amputees may want a prosthetic device for many different reasons. For some people, missing limbs can lead to low self-esteem and social exclusion from the community. For others, it can make it difficult to find and maintain meaningful employment. For all, it can make eating, cooking, dressing, and washing challenging to complete. By providing amputees with a usable prosthetic device, confidence is increased, employment can be found and everyday tasks can be carried out without assistance. 

The Victoria Hand is a complete body-powered prosthesis consisting of a hand, a wrist, a limb-socket, and a harness and costs only $240 USD to print, assemble and fit. As a comparison, conventional prosthetic devices can cost thousands of dollars. The Victoria Hand has high functionality, natural appearance, and is custom-made to fit each amputee. 

VHP’s approach has three key features: 

(1) setup of a production/fabrication center and training to make 3D printed prostheses on-site within developing countries; 

(2) training and working with clinical intermediaries and medical practitioners to provide professional care for amputees; 

(3) on-going operations support for both the 3D Print Group and the Clinical Care Group. 

Not only are amputees able to get replacement parts easily and on-demand, but the local economy is supported by creating jobs for people living in the country. 

All of this is made possible with 3D-printing technology! The Victoria Hand Project first began as a Master’s project in 2001 by the Executive Director of the project, Dr. Nikolai Dechev, while at the University of Toronto. Dr. Dechev wanted to create a hand capable of adaptive grasp so amputees could have a device that had a more mechanical function, could grip onto objects better and looked more natural. The hand was ground-breaking but, as it was originally machined from metal, cost thousands of dollars to manufacture. It wasn’t until 3D printing became readily available that the hand was looked at again. 3D printing paved the way for the success of the project, with parts manufactured at a fraction of the original price. 

Grand Challenges Canada provided a grant in September 2014 to further the research and, in February 2015, the first trials in Guatemala began, with patients testing the 3D-printed Victoria Hand for up to eight weeks. The users not only gave insightful feedback but also loved the hand, asking to keep it after testing was done. This sparked the idea for the Victoria Hand Project—a non-profit organization that could develop a high-quality, low-price prosthesis for the developing world. Established officially in July 2015, VHP has since partnered in seven different countries around the world and fit over 100 amputees with trans-radial (below elbow) and trans-humeral (above the elbow) upper-limb prosthetic devices.

The Victoria Hand is currently available in seven countries worldwide

A woman in Cambodia uses the Victoria Hand to wash dishes

Kevin from Guatemala holding a 3D printed ball with his 3D printed prosthetic hand

With feedback from the in-country partner groups, prosthetists and amputees, VHP works to make the device even better and more user-friendly. VHP’s mission is to provide upper-limb prosthetics to amputees in need, and hope the future brings chances to help many more amputees across the world!

See some of the newest innovations, including a Child’s Hand and a Force Doubler, at VictoriaHandProject.com

About the Author

Kelly Knights is a fourth-year biomedical engineering student at the University of Victoria who has been volunteering with the Victoria Hand Project since September 2016. Kelly completed a co-op work term with the Victoria Hand project in Fall 2018, where she assisted with the design, development, and testing of the new Force Doubler device and the Child’s Hand. Kelly has also been involved with media outreach, the creation of training documentation and assembly of the Victoria Hand. 

The post A Helping Hand to Those in Need—Improving the World with 3D Printing appeared first on 3DHeals.

Q: What is your vision on the intersection of 3D Printing and healthcare?

A: Humans are incredibly varied in their geometry, and therefore I think the ability to customize anything that is essentially a “replacement part” will be welcomed by physicians.

Q: What do you specialize in? What is your passion? 

A: My passion is good ideas and building teams to make them happen.

Q: What inspired you to do what you do? 

A: I don’t think I could put my finger on that, I just turned out that way.

Q: What is the biggest potential impact you see 3D printing having on the healthcare industry? 

A: An infinite number of custom parts not just to replace bone matter, but to replace more complicated structures in the body as well.

Q: What challenges do you see arising in implementing 3D printing in healthcare sector in the next 5 years? 

A: All the usual suspects: regulatory environment, lack of capital for hardware startups, difficulty of building clinical data, etc.

Q: What is the best business lesson you have learned? 

A: Be ready to have even your most basic assumptions and best ideas proven wrong. You need to listen to the market to find the right answer.

Q: What is the biggest business risk you have taken?

A: I decided to become an unemployed entrepreneur right after my first child was born. I’m lucky my wife didn’t kill me.

The post Interview: Mr. Nathan Harding appeared first on 3DHeals.

While most coverage and media discussion of 3D printed prosthetics focuses on the devices themselves, in reality, the prosthesis is actually just a part of a more complex and nuanced process of prosthetic rehabilitative care, which starts well before an individual receives a prosthesis and continues long after they have been fitted.

Andreas Bastian is a researcher, designer, and engineer with deep experience in developing and applying cutting edge 3D printing technologies. A principal research scientist at Autodesk, he has explored novel configurations of stereoloithography technologies, scalable parallelization of toolpath based technologies, and industrial applications of additive manufacturing capabilities. Previously, he has developed novel FDM hardware and low-cost metal printing experiments as an artist in residence at Autodesk and developed an open source laser sintering system as part of the openSLS research he conducted as a fellow at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Institute at Rice University and Dr. Jordan Miller’s Physiologic Systems Engineering and Advanced Materials Laboratory. As the lead R&D engineer at MakerBot Industries, he conducted research into core mechanisms of the FDM process.

As a director and chair of the research and technology board at ECF, a non-profit devoted to developing low-cost systems for prosthetic care, Andreas leads design and development of high performance 3D printable prosthetics and of LimbForge, a scalable software platform for their deployment. Central to his work is the belief that 3D printing technology can only affect change when it is realizing thoughtful, human-centered design.

Previously he has worked with the e-NABLE community where he developed novel thermoforming techniques, guided community design efforts, and designed popular assistive devices. Andreas will be a speaker at 3DHEALS2017.

Q: What is your vision on the intersection of 3D Printing and healthcare?

A: 3D printing provides an incredible opportunity to better address the needs of patients that have not been met by conventional manufacturing techniques. I hope for a world in which products are not designed for the average person, but a world in which design systems exist to allow the rapid creation of highly contextual, appropriate products that address previously unmet needs.

Q: What do you specialize in? What is your passion?

A: I specialize in making scalable systems for the design and delivery of custom 3D printed prosthetic devices. While most coverage and media discussion of 3D printed prosthetics focuses on the devices themselves, in reality, the prosthesis is actually just a part of a more complex and nuanced process of prosthetic rehabilitative care, which starts well before an individual receives a prosthesis and continues long after they have been fitted.

Photo Credit: Andreas Bastian/ ECF

Q: What inspired you to do what you do?

A: I began exploring the idea of 3D printed prosthetics as one of the e-NABLE community’s earliest members. Within that community, I participated in the design and release of some of e-NABLE’s most popular devices, but gradually learned that the crowdsourced design and manufacture of assistive devices was not scalable. And without a thoughtful, patient-centered design process, it would not produce designs that met real needs. When we take a step back, prosthetic devices are remarkable things when viewed through the lens of product design. They are fundamentally human-centered objects. The design intent behind a prosthesis is not necessarily to replace a lost limb, but to address the individual’s greatest perceived loss. This is remarkably personal and unique to that specific individual. So from a design perspective, there is a promising fit between the product design requirements of a prosthesis and the capabilities presented by 3D printers.

What motivates me is that 3D printing is really about design. 3D printers are ultimately only as valuable as the things that they make and the things that they make are only as valuable as the design that defined them. And when it comes to scaling prosthetic care, the challenge is not one of designing a single device, but one of designing a system for appropriate, impactful design, and this is what my team is building with LimbForge.

Q: What is the biggest potential impact you see 3D printing having on the healthcare industry?

A: I see three very important impact mechanisms playing out over the coming years:

1. Custom Geometry
   3D printing is often a great fit for body-interfacing parts, such as orthoses, braces, surgical guides, and medical implants. Many applications in the medical space will find 3D printing to be a better pathway to customized devices than conventional processes.
2. Complex Geometry
   Structural complexity can be highly functional and valuable in certain applications, such as oseointegratition implants, in which the fine stuctures made possible with advanced design and metal 3D printing capabilities facilitate bone growth into the porous surface of an implant.
3. Supply Chain Disruption
   “Digital supply chains” will become increasingly important for clinics in under resourced and remote areas where traditional shipping and distribution methods fall short.

Photo Credit: Andreas Bastian/ ECF

Q: What challenges do you see arising in implementing 3D printing in healthcare sector in the next 5 years?

A: The biggest challenge I see is that 3D printing is not yet a mature manufacturing technology. We cannot yet rely on a 3D printer to produce the same part twice, let alone at production volumes. And as 3D printing sees more adoption as a distributed manufacturing technology, we will need to see significant advances in in-machine process monitoring and validation to address the challenge of distributed QA, especially for applications in the medical space.

Beyond this there are numerous challenges in materials development, software, and certification, but those are all secondary to the challenge of making 3D printing into a technology that we can truly call additive manufacturing.

Q: What is the best business lesson you have learned?

A: Ultimately, there is only one reason people adopt 3D printing: it has to save them money. Granted, there are many situations in which it makes sense to adopt 3D printing for the marketing and PR value that surfing the hype wave brings, but this is not sustainable. I have had conversations with the heads of additive manufacturing at major automotive companies and spoken at length with clinic administrators in Port-au-Prince about 3D printing technology and how it can be useful to each party and it all comes down to one thing: does it save time, money, or both.

Q: Tell us about what your organization does.

A: ECF makes a piece of software for clinicians called LimbForge. LimbForge is a platform for the customization and manufacture of 3D printed prosthetics. It allows clinicians to quickly and easily configure and print highly customized upper limb prosthetic devices. ECF’s upper limb prosthetics are designed to address the highly contextual needs of a given patient population and are informed by the needs of specific patients as well as an understanding of cultural and societal norms that surround a patient. The goal is to develop devices that are sensitive to the cultural context of the patient and that provide the social functionality demanded by patients as well as physical functionality.

Using LimbForge and 3D printing and scanning technology can save clinicians time normally spent shaping prosthetic devices by hand and can allow them to see more patients in a given day. Additionally, by designing standardized printed interfaces and components, LimbForge enables a “digital supply chain”, which is extremely valuable in areas where it can take weeks, months, or even years to source.

The post Interview: Mr. Andreas Bastian appeared first on 3DHeals.

“If you say you can do something, do it.”

Evan Kuester works in the research and development department at 3DSystems as an Advanced Applications Engineer. Originally specializing in the design of 3D printed prosthesis with groups like E-nableing the Future,3DSystems-Bespoke Innovations, and Limbitless Solutions, his work has now crossed into many different fields. These fields include but are not limited to; Aerospace, Architecture, Medical Devices Design, Industrial Design, Fashion Design, Education, and Art. His work has received tens of millions of views online and has been displayed in Museums and Exhibitions all over the world.

Trained as an Architect, Evan works with advanced parametric CAD and mesh design techniques. As well as researches how to design and optimize devices for various types of printing technologies. He also hashed experience with many forms of digital fabrications techniques including robotic automation, laser cutting and CNC machining. Mr. Kuester will be a speaker at #3DHEALS2017.

Q: What is your vision on the intersection of 3D Printing and healthcare?

A: As technology progresses we will be able to create ever smaller and more complex machines that will one day take the place of larger machines that keep patients hospital bound. Imagine a world where a something as complex as a dialysis machine could be implanted under someone’s skin.

Q: What is the biggest potential impact you see 3D printing (or bioprinting) having on the healthcare industry?

A: It will change the very way we go about designing and manufacturing any type of medical device or replacement body part.

Q: What challenges do you see arising in implementing 3D printing (or bioprinting) in healthcare sector in the next 5 years?

A: 1) Material Science. 2) FDA approvals. 3)Software capable of handling incredibly complex data. 4) Machine resolution — How small can you efficiently print an object.

Q: Who inspires you the most in the 3D printing industry?

A: The next generation of inventors and designers, they will take the design techniques being developed today and push them far beyond anything currently achievable.

Q: What is the best business lesson you have learned?

A: If you say you can do something, do it.

Q: What is the biggest business risk you have taken?

A: Dropping out of school to explore and design possibilities in field of study that did not exist at the time.

The post Interview: Mr. Evan Kuester appeared first on 3DHeals.