Apr 05, 2025 At our first hybrid event of the year in San Francisco, we gathered five brilliant innovators to discuss the future of medical 3D printing. Discover the latest advancements in AI and LLMs for 3D model creation, market growth for AR/VR technologies, the evolution of expandable implants, organoids for antibody discovery, and much more. But it isn’t just about the tech. What’s unique about these events is hearing from our speakers about the lessons learned from their experiences, offering strategies like thinking outside the box for orthopedics, applying evidence-based innovation for innovators and investors, and embracing the beauty in simplicity for 3D printing at commercial scales. These key takeaways will inspire and guide those looking to stay ahead in the ever-evolving medical 3D printing landscape. Here’s a recap of the virtual event presentations, which you can now watch on-demand through 3DHEALS Courses. Stay tuned for Jenny’s take on the in-person part of this event.
Where AR/VR and AI cross paths
Making anatomical 3D models using ChatGPT? It might be a bit of a stretch now, but that’s something that Dr. Jesse Courtier thinks is on the horizon. Dr. Courtier, a pediatric radiologist and founder of UCSF spinout Sira Medical, showed us how to use large-language models to create 3D models in visualization software. Ask Claude for a 3D femur bone in Blender, then sit back and relax as your custom model is built before your eyes. Dr. Courtier points out that such software could one day be used to turn radiology reports into 3D models for teaching purposes and patient education. This could make 3D visualization more accessible and easier to use without requiring extensive experience in using CAD software to create a custom model. While the Claude tool that Courtier found didn’t produce the kind of high-quality femur that you’d expect for teaching future surgeons, the vague semblance of a bone that appeared on the screen still holds promise that more significant investments in AI for anatomical 3D model creation might produce more realistic models in the future. Forward-thinking entrepreneurs and researchers are needed to tailor AI specifically for the 3D field.
Taking these AI-generated models into AR/VR headsets for an immersive experience has incredible potential to enhance student training and improve patient education. Dr. Courtier is optimistic: with over 980 million USD invested in the past decade for this field, the AR/VR market is expected to grow by 30-35% (CAGR) between 2024-2029. Dr. Courtier’s company, Sira Medical, recently received FDA 510(k) clearance for its AR preoperative planning software, and there’s hope that AI will help to open even more doors for innovations to enter the market.
Thinking outside the box
The passion and drive of our speakers are undeniable. While Josh Mikulich may not be an engineer by training, he’s a visionary. Mikulich, Director of Spine Sales at Evolution Surgical, described how he gravitated towards the 3D-printed spine space early in his journey out of genuine interest for the field. While there was skepticism in those days around shifting from PEEK to 3D-printed titanium, Mikulich dived deeper and stuck with his vision that 3D printing would be significant. He started his independent distributorship, launched the first 3D-printed guide for hip surgery at Stanford, and brought 3D-printed products to the US market through his work with Anatomics. Mikulich is what we mean when we talk about leaders in 3D medical printing: it takes incredible ambition and a willingness to learn beyond one’s boundaries to break into this field.
Mikulich shared his takes for the future of 3D printing, specifically for spine. He’s looking at expandable implants — devices inserted between the spinal vertebrae to fill the space for a spinal fusion — and the variety of solutions that have appeared. Early expandable interbody devices included stackable wafers that fill the space like a stack of books and ramps that wedge between the vertebrae at an angle. Now, the expandable landscape is turning to cam-driven devices that expand in two planes to fill the space much better and balloons that can be filled with graft. However, he encourages us to think outside the box and really toy with ideas not yet seen in the area. For example, he shares that maybe the future of spine fusions could be expandable foam devices with a lattice structure that fit perfectly in the space, like a deformable memory foam mattress, or cage structures that expand using hinges.
Mikulich also talked about the potential opportunities for using 3D printing to manufacture disposable surgical tools that reduce the burden of sterile processing and enable a ready supply of tools to avoid surprises if an instrument gets lost. There’s still much to explore in using 3D printing for anatomical simulators to demonstrate a product on fake tissue and bone, especially when cadavers can’t be used or are too expensive to be practical, such as quick demos for trade show booths. For those who think outside the box, 3D printing is much more than just another way to make the same implants and guides on the market.
Evidence-based innovation
Reducing people’s salaries isn’t an option, so how do we cut hospital costs? Dr. Kuan-Lin Chen shares that reducing the length of a patient’s stay at the hospital is a key avenue worth pursuing. Dr. Chen, an orthopedic surgeon and medical advisor at AMED Ventures, notes that the length of stay for total hip arthroplasties has significantly decreased from more than 1 week to about 1 day in recent years, which is encouraging considering that each day has a high cost of 3,000 USD. How do we manage the increased caseload at outpatient surgical centers, and how do we shift more procedures to these outpatient centers?
Dr. Chen points out that large companies such as Zimmer Biomet are already expanding their reach in the area by acquiring Paragon 28, a company with large ASC experience. Arthrex is advancing endoscopic spine surgery to increase minimally-invasive procedures and others are creating robot-assisted surgical systems to move the field towards automation.
Further advancements are needed to continue reducing costs, and bringing 3D printing into the equation might open up some solutions, especially rapid, point-of-care 3D printing. One method Dr. Chen uses to evaluate new solutions is evidence-based innovation, ensuring that the innovation is supported by clinical need. It’s essential to ensure that the problem a new technology addresses isn’t caused by some other factor lurking in the background, such as the problems with surgical protocol used or poor case selection rather than pitfalls with current technology. Dr. Chen also encourages innovators to find contradictions in their designs, which means determining the expense when changing the traditional approach to the new solution and understanding whether that’s an expense people are willing to make. In many cases, that means not giving up on the speed of use. Newer solutions might bring fancy features, but it isn’t going to be adopted if they make the process longer.
Simple is better
With such a large parameter space involved in 3D bioprinting, simple is better. Bhushan Mahadik, Director of Research at Prellis Biologics, urges innovators to consider whether 3D printing is necessary to address a problem. Just because we can use 3D printing to make a solution more complex doesn’t mean that it has a high chance of working, especially since 3D-printed products can be difficult to manufacture on a commercial scale.
One area in which 3D bioprinting is well suited to address the complexity of the problem is antibody discovery. Mahadik shared how Prellis Biologics uses two-photon lithography printing to fabricate scaffolds for growing human cells. Specifically, they’re using these scaffolds to produce organoids that mimic the lymph nodes, enabling them to use cells in vitro to generate antibodies as potential therapeutics.
Rajan Patel also agrees that simple is better. As CEO of Kallisio, Patel shows how the company makes a device that addresses the side effects of radiation therapy simply by separating the healthy and cancerous tissue using a physical barrier. The 3D-printed device is placed in the mouth, protecting the tongue and other healthy tissue from radiation. 3D printing enables them to create devices specific to the patient’s anatomy, and they’ve optimized the process to be done within 3 days. Scanning done on day 1, design and printing automations done on day 2, and the 3D-printed device ready on day 3 for the patient. Patel points out that this was a big challenge for them, but it was the kind of speed they needed for oncology.
Lessons to live by
Our speakers share the lessons they’ve learned along their journeys, and as we navigate this world of 3D printing and AI, their experiences are invaluable. Subscribe to 3DHEALS to join us live for future online and in-person events.
About the Author:
Peter Hsu is an editorial intern for 3DHEALS. He is currently an undergraduate at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and studies bioengineering with a focus on cell and tissue engineering. He is also minoring in computer science with interests in artificial intelligence and image processing. Peter conducts research on using computer vision methods to analyze human tissue images and improving the robustness of machine learning workflows. He is interested in the use of AI to assist tissue engineering and bioprinting research for medical applications. He is passionate about science communication and leads STEM outreach lessons at schools in the central Illinois area.
Related Links:
Event Recap: 3D Printing for Veterinarian Medicine
Event Recap: Revolutionizing Pet Care With 3D
Event Recap: 3D Microfabrication
Event Recap: 3D Bioprinting Biofabricating Skin Components
Revolutionizing 3D-Printed Facial Titanium Implants Polishing
Comments