To create and build in 3D is to understand our world with greater complexity and richness. Over the years, 3D printing and visualization have captivated us and the imaginations of innovators worldwide. We have seen many incredible applications of this technology, but what brings these discussions to life are the people creating and being impacted by these changes. At our latest 3DHEALS event on Advancing 3D Surgical Planning, one of the field’s biggest challenges is realizing the entire clinical workflow. At that level, integrating 3D technologies isn’t just about the tools and gadgets – it’s also about the people who work in and depend on the clinical system. In this recap article, we’ll take a look at the main lessons we learned from our five expert panelists on how to actually put 3D into practice.

Building with Human-Centered Design

As AI takes its turn as a flashy marketing tactic, it will be important for innovators to build software with the thoughtfulness and attention to detail needed to bring actual value to users.  For Dr. Tim Van Cleynenbreugel, Co-Founder and CTO of Replasia, creating a software tool to work alongside the company’s 3D-printed titanium implant for hip dysplasia presented an opportunity to develop patient-specific products in a reproducible, scalable way.

The software, called HipStudio, enables users to conveniently perform anatomic measurements, perform simulations, and compare with healthy reference data. By designing software tools that support the creation and use of their 3D-printed implant, they can make this level of patient customization more accessible and easier for healthcare providers to adopt.

This type of software can ultimately help to lower the time, cost, and effort barriers that patient-specific devices typically present. However, they must be carefully designed with the human user in mind. What repetitive steps can the software perform, and when will the user want to manually intervene? What data should we show the user, and, importantly, what should be kept hidden to avoid information overload? How much responsibility should we place on users to catch errors, especially AI-generated ones?

While the 3D printing field is working to advance software integration into clinical workflows, addressing these critical questions distinguishes practical software from hype-driven, extraneous features.

Balancing Creativity and Reproducibility

Dr. Beatriz Dominguez Gonzalez, Global Market Manager for Materialise, recommends seeing beyond the print when figuring out how to turn 3D technologies into a routine, rather than a niche, practice. She suggests investing in a workflow that (1) selects the most complex cases that will provide significant and not just marginal benefits, (2) utilizes standardized segmentation protocols, and (3) ensures that 3D plans are aligned with the surgical schedule and not the other way around.

Incorporating 3D workflows into the clinical environment will require innovators to carefully consider design standardizations and constraints, without sacrificing the flexibility the technology promises. Not every hospital will have its own 3D expert with decades of experience, which means the restrictions we place on data quality, the sequence of steps, and the double-checks that must occur are integral parts of the product.

Innovation in this field will come from technologies that empower users to be creative and express their design ideas while simultaneously adhering to strict principles that prevent them from getting lost in the software’s complexity or from ending up with undesirable results.

Listening to an Ecosystem of People

For Dr. Mark Tan, a Radiologist and Clinical Lead of the Singapore General Hospital 3D Printing Centre, bringing people together is his craft. Dr. Tan describes the importance of creating diverse teams of engineers, radiographers, managers, and clinical leads to make the technology accessible to patients and providers. 

He describes several challenges in implementing 3D technologies in clinical settings. For example, creating 3D models for surgical planning involves acquiring high-quality medical imaging scans and potentially combining imaging modalities to capture the relevant spatial and temporal details. It also means having someone with computer-aided design (CAD) expertise and a person with an understanding of different printing materials.

3D planning and printing affect an entire ecosystem of individuals within the healthcare system, and innovators must anticipate how their product will affect each one of these people. Listening to their needs and preferences is what ultimately shapes a product. The customer isn’t just the patient or the surgeon; it’s also all the individuals the product depends on to get it to the end user.

Sharing the 3D Mindset

Rashi Gupta, a 3D Printing Engineer at SSM Health Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital, points out three major obstacles: (1) there can be a disconnect between doctors and engineers due to differences in terminology and knowledge, (2) sometimes people are unaware that the 3D lab exists, and (3) there is resistance to reimbursement for surgical planning since such plans aren’t physical products.

One way Gupta addresses these challenges is by knowing how to educate people on 3D technologies and bridging the language gap between different specialists. By taking the time to learn more about the clinical perspective as an engineer, she describes how she has a better understanding of how to bring people together around this technology and how we can better train future leaders in the field.

Innovators will need to consider how their product also requires an educational component to help stakeholders understand the device’s significance and how to use it. 3D technologies are rapidly expanding to a point where an interdisciplinary background is needed to understand the “3D mindset.” Translating innovation into a language that people from different fields can resonate with is part of the equation for user adoption.

Bringing Real Value to Clinicians

One of the major goals of Dr. David Pearlstone, CEO of DICOM Director, is to achieve a human digital twin that will allow clinicians, patients, and families to understand a person’s specific medical condition through computer simulations and visualizations. For Dr. Pearlstone, the predictive ability of such twins will enable greater insights and benefits, such as understanding how a tumor mass will grow over time.

While AI may play a significant role in the future of predictive digital twins, it will be up to humans to decide which predictions will be useful in clinical practice and which are just noise. Predictions may provide more information to the clinician, but many will shrug their shoulders as to what it means if there isn’t good evidence to back it up.

Dr. Pearlstone envisions a future in which digital twins improve clinicians’ practice of healthcare through predictive insights, and it will be important for 3D specialists to decide how those predictions fit into the overall clinical workflow.

Continue to Explore with Us

This event has shown us that while 3D technologies for surgical planning are here, their integration into the clinical workflow still has many unsolved hurdles. Through our expert panelists, we are beginning to understand what this integration might look like and the ways the field can actually fulfill the promises it makes. Continue to explore with us on this journey by registering for our live webinars and subscribing to our newsletter.

About the Author:

Peter Hsu

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 improve 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:

Communicating Your Science in the Bioprinting Space

Event Recap: 3D-Printed Devices In Orthopedics

Event Recap: Microfluidic Devices and 3D Printing

Expert Corner: AI in Healthcare 3D Printing: The Future is Now

Microfluidic Devices and 3D Printing (On Demand, 2025)

Event Recap: 3D Printed Pharmaceuticals

The post Event Recap: Advancing 3D Surgical Planning appeared first on 3DHeals.

In 2016, when I co-authored the first edition of ” A Roadmap from Idea to Implementation: 3D Printing for Pre-Surgical Application: Operational Management for 3D Printing in Surgery“, focusing on a systematic thinking process to address these questions by evaluating components of operational management with Michelle Gabriel. However, selling a book is not going to accelerate adaption, instead, I decided to publish this book as a regularly updated online version of 3DHEALS Guide in five digestible parts, focusing on and adding new information from field experts from all over the world to provide a foundation to any early adapters.

The first time I learned about 3D printing (a.k.a. additive manufacturing ) for pre-surgical planning was in 2012 during RSNA (Radiological Society of North America) in Chicago. As a small box containing pieces of a 3D-printed heart from a pediatric patient was passed around the conference room, I could tell that the room stopped breathing. For me, it was a sensational moment as a radiologist and as a healthcare provider. Having a patient’s disease in three-dimension in my hands was unimaginable. I immediately wanted to learn more about the technology and how I, as a radiologist, could use it to help my clinical colleagues. However, to me, the road to implementation was not simple and almost obscure.  The barrier to entry for such technology seems to require one to be a combination of a designer, a mechanical engineer, and a software developer, and lastly a healthcare provider. 

Not giving up, I started organizing meetings focusing on learning and discussing healthcare 3D printing solutions in San Francisco called 3DHEALS, hoping to create a community composed of various disciplines to start to have more practical conversations to accelerate the adaptation of the technology.

Michelle and I met at an after-work healthcare technology conference, and we instantly hit it off because of our complementary knowledge and interest in healthcare, operational management, 3D printing, and engineering. We are both fascinated with the complex process of integrating promising technologies into healthcare. On top of that, Michelle’s background in both operations management and material science and engineering, and mine in medicine and education add unique perspectives to this book. 

That said, we both are fully aware of our limitations in various aspects of the subject of 3D printed surgical planning and do not proclaim to be field experts. This post serves as part 7 of this Guide series to thank individuals and companies for their insights and relationship with us and publication reference. Since our Guides are regularly updated and our conversations with our ecosystem never stop, this page will be updated whenever our guides are updated when appropriate.

Now On Demand:

1. Introduction:  What is operational management?
2. Technical Background
3. Strategic Issues
4. Tactical Issues
5. Financial Issues       
6. Financial Worksheet         
7. Acknowledgments/References

Acknowledgements: 

We would like to give special thanks and acknowledgment to the following individuals: 

• Dr. Parit Patel (Assistant professor of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Loyola Medicine)
• Dr. Elliot Brown (Assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at Yale University)
• Dr. Jose Morey (Medical scientist with IBM Watson project, adjunct professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the University of Virginia)
• Mr. Glen Jett from Sutter Health for providing valuable financial insights.
• Dr. Justin Ryan (Arizona State University Post-Doctoral Researcher, Phoenix Children’s Hospital Research Scientist) for providing valuable feedbacks and research on 3D printing for pediatric congenital heart cases.

• Dr. Justin Ryan
• Mr. Shannon Walter (Stanford School of Medicine, Manager of 3D and Quantitative Imaging Laboratory)
• Mr. Chris Letrong (Stanford School of Medicine, 3D Technologist)
• Dr. Ben Taragin (Children Hospital at Montefiore, Director of Pediatric Radiology)
• Dr. Joaquim M. Farinhas (Neuroradiology, Montefiore Medical Center)
• Materialse Inc. 
• Whitecloud Inc. 
• Stanford School of Medicine

References:

1. Columbus L. 2015 roundup of 3D printing market forecasts and estimates. http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2015/03/31/2015-roundup-of-3d-printing-market-forecasts-and-estimates/. Published March 31, 2015.
2. Chen HJ, Gabriel M. Healthcare 3D printing in academia. 3D https://3dheals.com/healthcare-3d-printing-in-academia/. Published October 1, 2015.
3. Friedman T, Michalski M, Goodman TR, Elliot Brown. 3D printing from diagnostic images: a radiologist’s primer with an emphasis on musculoskeletal imaging—putting the 3D printing of pathology into the hands of every physician. Skeletal Radiology, 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2282-6. Published November 23, 2015.
4. Koleilat I, Jaeggli M, Ewing JA, et al. Interobserver variability in physician-modified endograft planning by comparison with a three-dimensional printed aortic model. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 1–8. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2015.09.044. Published June 17, 2015.
5. Vaquerizo B, Theriault-Lauzier P, Piazza N. Percutaneous Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: Patient-specific Three-dimensional Computer-based Heart Model and Prototyping. Revista Española De Cardiología (English Edition), 1–9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2015.08.005.
6. Giannopoulos AA, Chepelev L, Sheikh A, et al. 3D printed ventricular septal defect patch: a primer for the 2015 Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) hands-on course in 3D printing. 3D Printing in Medicine, 1–20. http://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-015-0002-4.
7. Cai T, Rybicki FJ, Giannopoulos AA, et al. The residual STL volume as a metric to evaluate accuracy and reproducibility of anatomic models for 3D printing: application in the validation of 3D-printable models of maxillofacial bone from reduced radiation dose CT images. 3D Printing in Medicine, 1–9. http://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-015-0003-3.
8. Rybicki FJ. 3D Printing in Medicine: an introductory message from the Editor-in-Chief. 3D Printing in Medicine, 1–1. http://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-015-0001-5.
9. VanKoevering KK, Morrison RJ, Prabhu SP, et al. Antenatal Three-Dimensional Printing of Aberrant Facial Anatomy. Pediatrics, 136(5), e1382–e1385. http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-1062.
10. Dickinson KJ, Matsumoto J, Cassivi SD, et al. Individualizing Management of Complex Esophageal Pathology Using Three-Dimensional Printed Models. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 100(2), 692–697. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.03.115.
11. Itagaki MW. Using 3D printed models for planning and guidance during endovascular intervention: a technical advance. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, 21(4), 338–341. http://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2015.14469.
12. Tai BL, Wang AC, Joseph JR, et al. A physical simulator for endoscopic endonasal drilling techniques: technical note. Journal of Neurosurgery, 1–6. http://doi.org/10.3171/2015.3.JNS1552.
13. Weinstock P, Prabhu SP, Flynn K, et al. Optimizing cerebrovascular surgical and endovascular procedures in children via personalized 3D printing. Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, 1–6. http://doi.org/10.3171/2015.3.PEDS14677.
14. Grant GT, Liacouras P, Santiago GF, et al. Restoration of the donor face after facial allotransplantation: digital manufacturing techniques. Annals of Plastic Surgery. 2014:72(6), 720–724. http://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000189.
15. Huotilainen E, Paloheimo M, Salmi M, et al. Imaging requirements for medical applications of additive manufacturing. Acta Radiologica. 2014:55(1), 78–85. http://doi.org/10.1177/0284185113494198.
16. Huotilainen E, Jaanimets R., Valášek J, et al. Inaccuracies in additive manufactured medical skull models caused by the DICOM to STL conversion process Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2014:42(5), e259–e265. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2013.10.001.
17. Lethaus B, Poort L, Böckmann R, et al. Additive manufacturing for microvascular reconstruction of the mandible in 20 patients. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2012:40(1), 43–46. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2011.01.007.
18. Li Y, Jiang Y, Ye B, et al. Treatment of Dentofacial Deformities Secondary to Osteochondroma of the Mandibular Condyle Using Virtual Surgical Planning and 3-Dimensional Printed Surgical Templates. Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery. 2015:1–20. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2015.06.169.
19. Mazzoni S, Bianchi A, Schiariti G, et al. Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing Cutting Guides and Customized Titanium Plates Are Useful in Upper Maxilla Waferless Repositioning. Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery. 2015:73(4), 701–707. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2014.10.028.
20. Ogden KM, Aslan C, Ordway N, et al. Factors Affecting Dimensional Accuracy of 3-D Printed Anatomical Structures Derived from CT Data. Journal of Digital Imaging. 2015. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-015-9803-7.
21. Pinto JM, Arrieta C, Andia ME, et al. Sensitivity analysis of geometric errors in additive manufacturing medical models. Medical Engineering and Physics. 2015:37(3), 328–334. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.01.009.
22. Ryan JR, Chen T, Nakaji P, et al. Ventriculostomy simulation using patient-specific ventricular anatomy, 3D printing and hydrogel casting. World Neurosurgery. 1–7. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2015.06.016.
23. Wang JQ, Zhao CP, Sun X, et al. Printed three-dimensional anatomic templates for virtual preoperative planning before reconstruction of old pelvic injuries: initial results. Chinese Medical Journal. 2015:128(4), 477–6. http://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.151088.
24. Watson RA. A low-cost surgical application of additive fabrication. Journal of Surgical Education. 2014:71(1), 14–17. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2013.10.012.
25. Werner H, Santos JRL, Fontes R, et al. Additive manufacturing models of fetuses built from three-dimensional ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography scan data. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2010:36(3), 355–361. http://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7619.
26. Wong KC, Kumta SM, Geel NV, et al. One-step reconstruction with a 3D-printed, biomechanically evaluated custom implant after complex pelvic tumor resection. Computer Aided Surgery: Official Journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery. 2015:20(1), 14–23. http://doi.org/10.3109/10929088.2015.1076039.
27. Mendez B, Chiodo MV, and Patel PA. Customized “in-office” three-dimensional printing for virtual surgical planning in craniofacial surgery. The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2015:26(5):1584-6. http://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000001768.
28. Peasah SK, McKay NL, Harman JS, et al. Medicare non-payment of hospital-acquired infections: infection rates three years post implementation. Medicaid & Medicare Research Review. 2013:3(3). https://www.cms.gov/mmrr/Downloads/MMRR2013_003_03_a08.pdf.
29. Willis DR. How to decide whether to buy new medical equipment. American Academy of Family Physicians. 2004. http://www.aafp.org/fpm/2004/0300/p53.html.
30. Rybicki F. Medical 3D printing for the radiologist. Radiographics. 2015:35(7):1965-88. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26562233.
31. Small T, Krebs V, Molloy R, et al. Comparison of acetabular shell position using patient specific instruments vs. standard surgical instruments: a randomized clinical trial. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2014:29(5): 1030–1037. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.10.006.
32. Frakes DH, Ryan JR, Almefty KK, et al. Cerebral aneurysm clipping surgery simulation using patient-specific 3d printing and silicone casting. World Neurosurgery. 2016:88,175-181. http://www.worldneurosurgery.org/article/S1878-8750(16)00112-1/abstract.
33. Sher D. New study confirms 3d printing market to grow to $17 billion by 2020. 3D Printing Industry. 2015. http://3dprintingindustry.com/2015/08/24/new-study-confirms-3d-printing-market-grow-17-billion-2020/.
34. Zaleski A. Here’s why 2016 could be 3D printing’s breakout year. Fortune. 2015. http://fortune.com/2015/12/30/2016-consumer-3d-printing/.
35. Sher D. Many 3d printing patents are expiring soon: heres a round up & overview of them. 3D Printing Industry. 2015. http://3dprintingindustry.com/2013/12/29/many-3d-printing-patents-expiring-soon-heres-round-overview/.
36. Earls A, and Baya V. The road ahead for 3-D printers. PwC. 2014. http://www.pwc.com/us/en/technology-forecast/2014/3d-printing/features/future-3d-printing.html.
37. After explosion, US Department of Labor’s OSHA cites 3-D printing firm for exposing workers to combustible metal powder, electrical hazards: Powderpart Inc. faces $64,400 in penalties. S. Department of Labor: Occupational Safety & Health Administration. 2014. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=26019.
38. Azimi P, Zhao D, Pouzet C, et al. Emissions of ultrafine particles and volatile organic compounds from commercially available desktop three-dimensional printers with multiple filaments. ACS Publication. 2016. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.5b04983.
39. 3d printing safety. Carnegie Mellon University. http://www.cmu.edu/ehs/fact-sheets/3D-Printing-Safety.pdf.
40. Columbus L. 2015 roundup of 3d printing market forecasts and estimates. Forbes. 2015. http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2015/03/31/2015-roundup-of-3d-printing-market-forecasts-and-estimates/.
41. We cant wait: Obama administration announces new public-private partnership to support consortium of businesses, universities, and community colleges from Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania co-invest with federal government in a manufacturing innovation institute. The White House. 2012. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/16/we-can-t-wait-obama-administration-announces-new-public-private-partners.
42. Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing – General Principles-Terminology (ASTM) ISO/ASTM 52900:2015(E)
43. Gross BC, Erkal JL, Lockwood SY, et al. Evaluation of 3d printing and its potential impact on Biotechnology and the chemical sciences. Analytical Chemistry. 2014:86, 3240-3253. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/ac403397r.
44. 3d printers and 3d printing: technologies, processes and techniques. Sculpteo. https://www.sculpteo.com/en/3d-printing/3d-printing-technologies/.
45. Davies CT, Baird LM, Jacobson MD, et al. 3d printing of medical devices: when a novel technology meets traditional legal principles. Reed Smith. 2015. https://www.reedsmith.com/3d-printing-of-medical-devices–when-a-novel-technology-meets-traditional-legal-principles-09-09-2015/.
46. Leinauer M. FDA regulations (or lack thereof) of 3d printed medical devices. Ice Miller Legal Counsel. 2015. http://www.icemiller.com/ice-on-fire-insights/publications/fda-regulations-%28or-lack-thereof%29-of-3d-printed-me/.
47. Espalin D, Perez M, Medina F, et al. Sterilization of FDA-manufactured parts. Stratasys. http://web.stratasys.com/rs/objet/images/SSYS-WP-Sterilization-FDM-01-14%20FINAL.pdf.
48. CPT process – how a code becomes a code. American Medical Association. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/cpt/cpt-process-faq/code-becomes-cpt.page.
49. Gholipour A, Estroff JA, Sahin M, et al. A posteriori estimation of isotropic high-resolution volumetric MRI from orthogonal thick-slice scans. Warfield Departments of Radiology and Neurology, Childrens Hospital Boston, and Harvard Medical School. 2010:13(0 2): 109–116.
50. Ejaz F, Ryan J, Henriksen M1, David Frakes, et al. Color-coded patient-specific physical models of congenital heart disease. Rapid Prototyping Journal. 2013. http://ipalab.fulton.asu.edu/wp-content/JournalPubs/RPJ_2013.pdf.
51. Matsumoto JS, Morris JM, Foley TA, et al. Three-dimensional physical modeling: applications and experience at Mayo Clinic. RadioGraphics. 2015:35(7), 1989-2006. http://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015140260.
52. Clinical Trials. https://clinicaltrials.gov/.
53. Johnson S. Erlanger inks deal with 3D-printer startup to print models of patients’ organs. Times Free Press. 2015. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/oct/12/model-surgery-local-tech-startsays-3-d-mockup/330008/.
54. Grunewald SJ. Can 3d digital models be patented? Federal courts to make key decision this summer. com. 2015. http://3dprint.com/104501/federal-court-3d-model-patent/.
55. Laser melting (LM). Additively. https://www.additively.com/en/learn-about/laser-melting.
56. Layer thickness in 3D printing: an additive manufacturing basic. Sculpteo. https://www.sculpteo.com/en/glossary/layer-thickness-definition/.
57. Hospital value-based purchasing. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2015: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-initiatives-patient-assessment-instruments/hospital-value-based-purchasing/index.html.
58. M Cotteleer, et al. The 3D Opportunity Primer: the Basics of Additive Manufacturing. Deloitte University Press. March 6, 2014. http://dupress.com/articles/the-3d-opportunity-primer-the-basics-of-additive-manufacturing/?id=2el:3dp:dupmooc:eng:dup:mmddyy:novoed
59. Technical Considerations of Additive Manufacture Medical Device: Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. 2016. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM499809.pdf

Related Articles:

3DHEALS Guides (Collective) – This is where we dive deep into subjects that you will find helpful for your projects and career.

3DEALS Expert Corner (Collective) – This is where we invite field experts to write their perspectives in a first-person narrative. To write for this column, please email: info@3dheals.com

3DHEALS From Academia (Collective) – This section features recent, relevant, close to commercialization academic publications in the space of healthcare 3D printing, 3D bioprinting, and related emerging technologies.

The post 3D Printing in Hospitals (Guide): Acknowledgement, References appeared first on 3DHeals.

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

Recently, we briefly reviewed a few publications examining the clinical values of mixed reality and 3D printing in our “Academia” section of the 3DHEALS blogs, and in particular, if combining the two technologies shows promises for a better overall product for pre- and intra-operative planning. This blog will dive deeper and hope to synthesize an updated overview of where the things are, shed light on future trends in a no-nonsense fashion, and perhaps provide an entry point for early adopters to these technologies.  

Virtual reality, Augmented reality, Mixed reality

First of all, it is important to clarify some terms.

At a high level, virtual reality (VR) implies a complete immersion experience that shuts out the physical world. Augmented reality (AR) adds digital elements to a live view often by using the camera on a smartphone, for example, augmented reality experiences using Snapchat lenses and the game Pokemon Go. Mixed reality not only puts digital objects in a user’s environment but also allow the users to interact with both the digital objects and his/her physical environment, including anatomy models during surgery. The Microsoft website provided a slightly more in-depth explanation of the concepts: [1]

“Mixed reality is the next evolution in human, computer, and environment interaction and unlocks possibilities that before now were restricted to our imaginations. It is made possible by advancements in computer vision, graphical processing power, display technology, and input systems. The term mixed reality was originally introduced in a 1994 paper by Paul Milgram and Fumio Kishino, “A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays.” Their paper introduced the concept of the virtuality continuum and focused on how the categorization of taxonomy applied to displays. Since then, the application of mixed reality goes beyond displays. It also includes environmental input, spatial sound, and location.”

The following demonstration further explains the concept that “mixed reality” is a spectrum rather than a single defined point: [1]

• “Towards the left (near physical reality). Users remain present in their physical environment and are never made to believe they have left that environment.
• In the middle (fully mixed reality). These experiences blend the real world and the digital world. Viewers who have seen the movie Jumanji can reconcile how the physical structure of the house where the story took place was blended with a jungle environment.
• Towards the right (near digital reality). Users experience a completely digital environment and are unaware of what occurs in the physical environment around them.”

What’s intriguing is that a 3D-printed model is entirely in the physical world yet representing 100% digital data (from the virtual world).

Mixed Reality versus 3D-Printing

The reason why 3D-printing and mixed reality are often evaluated side by side is that both are increasingly incorporated in advanced visualization workflow. For example, in a recent study comparing the technologies for nephron preservation surgery for Wilm’s tumor in pediatric patients [3], the authors presented the following workflow, demonstrating the close digital footprints of both procedures [Figure 1]. Both technologies can be used for surgical planning for a variety of specialties [2-7, 9-10], and both are often constrained by existing imaging processing capabilities including [5]:

• Imaging data acquisition/Resolution
• Segmentation
• Rendering
• Software analysis

Both technologies can produce models that are reproducible and provide a “shared” experience both before and during surgeries.

However, there are also unique value propositions from both technologies.

For mixed reality, the construction process of a final product is often less costly, and the user can manipulate the objects with more degrees of freedom (more adaptive). For example, the user can zoom in and out, or virtually “dissect” the model to see internal vascular structures, etc. The user can further superimpose other information onto the existing model, including functional data such as 3D tractography and finite element analysis. However, registration of the virtual model to the physical world remains a unique problem for mixed reality. Tissue deformation and tactile information from the real world are also lost for current MR technology. Additionally, significant technological hurdles include data transmission latency on current wireless networks, chunky and expensive headsets, additional hardware requirements including graphic cards, etc. 5G service is still in its infancy, particularly in the U.S. [8]

A unique value of the 3D printed model is that it can directly interact with the physical world. For example, surgeons can use a mandibular bone to pre-bend a metal plate before surgery, but not with mixed-reality models. Another example is a 3D printed surgical guide, which can directly interact with the patient’s anatomy and the surgeon. Once a model is printed, it can be shared without the need for any additional equipment or network, since it is now entirely physical.

Mixed Reality and 3D Printing

Several recent studies have explored if these currently still imperfect technologies can be complementary to each other, indicating a trend towards a more technology-agnostic approach in problem-solving. For example, Rafael Moreta-Martinez, et al [6] proposed a workflow to allow automatic registration of the real world and mixed reality data using a 3D-printed patient-specific registration instrument. Similarly, a few months later, Peng-Fei Lei, et al [2] designed a 3D-printed patient-specific registration instrument, complimenting 3D reconstructed virtual surgical planning and mixed reality intraoperative models in a complicated case hip arthroplasty case. The combination of a 3D printed surgical guide serving as a mixed reality automatic registration tool seems promising from both clinical and cost perspectives. It would be interesting to see more clinical applications leveraging both technologies simultaneously.

Conclusion:

Advanced visualization in healthcare has lately taken on new meanings with the advancement of several emerging technologies such as 3D printing and mixed reality. The progressive understanding of human-computer interaction is now elevating the human experiences in the operating theatres beyond visual experiences. That said, significant real technological hurdles exist for both MR and 3D printing. Additionally, the lack of outcome studies and quality control standards also limit wide-spread adoption.

Nonetheless, the optimists will say that few technological breakthroughs are accidental. The progress we are seeing in advanced visualization tools in healthcare today will not occur without past decades of innovation and improvements in imaging acquisition (i.e. CT, MR, etc.), computing power (cloud, etc), and digital manufacturing (e.g. 3D printing, digital milling, etc.). While most of these innovations appear only incremental improvements and often slower than our expectations, we may very well be on the cusp of the next quantum leap when these existing imperfect tools reach the perfect alignment.

References:

1. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/mixed-reality/mixed-reality

2. Mixed Reality Combined With Three-Dimensional Printing Technology in Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Updated Review With a Preliminary Case Presentation (Peng-Fei Lei, et al) Orthop Surg, 11 (5), 914-920 Oct 2019

3. Comparison of 3-Dimensional and Augmented Reality Kidney Models With Conventional Imaging Data in the Preoperative Assessment of Children With Wilms Tumors (Lianne M Wellens, et al) JAMA Network Open, 2 (4), e192633 2019 Apr 5 PMID: 31002326

PMCID: PMC6481457 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2633

4. Visualization Improves Supraclavicular Access to the Subclavian Vein in a Mixed Reality Simulator (Joshua Warren Sappenfield, et al) Anesthesia & Analgesia. 127(1):83–89, JULY 2018 PMID: 29200069 PMCID: PMC6774241DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002572

5. Neurosurgical Virtual Reality Simulation for Brain Tumor Using High-definition Computer Graphics: A Review of the Literature (Taichi Kin, et al) Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo), 57 (10), 513-520  2017 Oct 15 PMID: 28637947 PMCID: PMC5638778 DOI: 10.2176/nmc.ra.2016-0320

6. Augmented Reality in Computer-Assisted Interventions Based on Patient-Specific 3D Printed Reference (Rafael Moreta-Martinez, et al) Healthc Technol Lett, 5 (5), 162-166 2018 Sep 14 eCollection Oct 2018 PMID: 30464847 PMCID: PMC6222179 DOI: 10.1049/htl.2018.5072

7. Augmented Reality, Surgical Navigation, and 3D Printing for Transcanal Endoscopic Approach to the Petrous Apex (Samuel R Barber, et al) OTO Open, 2 (4), 2473974X18804492 2018 Oct 29 eCollection Oct-Dec 2018

PMID: 30719506 PMCID: PMC6348519 DOI: 10.1177/2473974X18804492

8. Virtual travel could change the world- if it gets off the ground.  Sara toth stub, dec. 12, 2019 10:00 am, Wall Street Journal

9. A Review of Simulation Applications in Temporal Bone Surgery (Tanisha S Kashikar, et al) Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol, 4 (4), 420-424

10. Augmented Reality and Three-Dimensional Printing in Percutaneous Interventions on Pulmonary Arteries (Jan Witowski, et al) Quant Imaging Med Surg, 9 (1), 23-29 Jan 2019 PMID: 30788243 PMCID: PMC6351817 DOI: 10.21037/qims.2018.09.08

Related Articles:

From 3D Printing to VR/AR: Simple Connection?

From Academia: 3D Printed Pills, 4D Printed Structure, and how to property 3D print Chocolate

From Academia: 3D-Printed Aligner, Bioprinting for Mouth Ulcer, Vertebroplasty Guides

From Academia: 3D Printing and Robotics, Stem cell coated Implants, Decentralized Mitigation of Pandemics

The post Mixed Reality and 3D Printing, Imperfections to Perfection? appeared first on 3DHeals.

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

Maxillofacial surgery is a broad specialty that includes a lot of different procedures with the aim to correct acquired conditions like trauma, or congenital pathologies – such as facial deformities i.e. lip and palatal clefts, or tumors. This article will discuss the past and present of 3D printing in maxillofacial surgery.

Historically, the planning phase for those situations was fully analogical, based on the surgeon’s capability to interpret two-dimensional exams (X-rays) of a three-dimensional structure. This leads to inaccuracies, especially in complex cases, where the surgeon’s ability was highly demanded.

With the advent of three-dimensional computer tomographies, the spatial visualization of patient’s structures was facilitated, but it was still a virtual image on a computer screen and surgeons were looking for more.

3D Printed Anatomical Models

With the advancements of 3D printing (additive manufacturing), surgeons now are able to materialize those virtual images into a tactile instrument to help locate themselves spatially during the surgical procedure or even practice the surgeries prior to the real case itself, but not limited to that. Anatomical models work as an educational tool for patients, showing their condition, and explain to them what is going to be the procedure, narrowing the bonds of trust between the professional and the patient.

In terms of the educational purpose of anatomical models, not only surgeons and patients can benefit from them, teaching institutions are able to replicate special cases multiple times, so residents could use them to simulate and train complex procedures. With the ability to manipulate three-dimensional images, it is even possible to create from scratch challenging scenarios to help future professionals to get better qualified from their training programs.

Virtual Surgical Planning

With the models in hand, the natural next step is the ability to replicate three-dimensionally surgical procedures and physically manipulating them. Initially, traditional CAD software was used to perform such process, but during the last years, many companies developed solutions dedicated to simulating surgical procedures digitally, with a lot of publications corroborating their accuracy and replicability.

Now, that we solve the problem of virtual surgical planning (VSP), how can we translate the virtual procedure made in the digital patient into the operative room and the real one?

Basically, we can use two systems to transfer that information into the physical scenario:

1. Navigation surgery –  a complex system of cameras and fiducial markers that locates in real-time the position of the surgical instruments and/or bone segments, trying to match the images on the computer screen with the real situation
2. Or using surgical templates (guides) to replicate the desired cutting paths or bone positions. Multiples authors compared both methods in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery field and it was observed a tendency for better results using surgical guides. Zinzer MJ. et. al (2013), for example, found that 3D-printed surgical guides can provide results about three times more accurate than navigational procedures in orthognathic surgery.

Traditionally, cutting and positioning guides were used in conjunction with off-the-shelf fixation systems that still require the surgeon’s ability to contour them into the patient’s anatomy, requiring high skills to exactly match the contoured plate into the bone surface. Sometimes this process can take precious time, with the patient under general anesthesia. Evolving on that idea, we get into what I believe is the gold standard protocol for treatment in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: The combination of 3D-printed surgical guides and Patient-Specific Implants.

As showed by Heufelder M. et al. (2017) and Suojanen J. et al. (2017), patient-specific implants for orthognathic surgery, in conjunction to drilling guides, provide excellent stability and predictability, and that’s not all.

The utilization of VSP in conjunction with 3D printed devices can bring multiple benefits: lower surgical time due to the unnecessity of bending and fitting off-the-shelf implants into the perfect position; Decreased surgical global costs due to reduced surgical and hospitalization time; Higher safeties to the surgeon and the patient due to higher predictability and the possibility to anticipate possible surgical difficulties and complications.

Modern software used to plan and design this type of systems can provide additional valuable information like optimal bone thickness areas, where screws theoretically stabilize better, avoiding thin areas and providing the possibility to control plate curvatures precisely.

Future of 3D Printing in Maxillofacial Surgery

The era of 3D printing in Oral and Maxillofacial surgery is evolving every day, providing better results to surgeons and patients. There are some aspects still under development, with promising results. I can see space for improvement on multiples fronts such as the following:

-Software: Incorporate artificial intelligence/machine learning to help surgeons take the best decisions for each individual case. Additionally, incorporate even more topological optimization concepts to diminishing the implants volume and lattice structures for lower weight.

-Hardware: Provide cheaper and faster manufacture alternatives.

-Material Science: Develop new 3D-printable materials with enhanced mechanical and biocompatible properties.

References:

1. Suojanen, Juho, Junnu Leikola, and Patricia Stoor. “The use of patient-specific implants in orthognathic surgery: a series of 32 maxillary osteotomy patients.” Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 44.12 (2016): 1913-1916. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27769722 
2. Heufelder, Marcus, et al. “Clinical accuracy of waferless maxillary positioning using customized surgical guides and patient-specific osteosynthesis in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery.” Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 45.9 (2017): 1578-1585.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28793965 
3. Zinser, Max J., et al. “A paradigm shift in orthognathic surgery? A comparison of navigation, computer-aided designed/computer-aided manufactured splints and “classic” intermaxillary splints to the surgical transfer of virtual orthognathic planning.” Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 71.12 (2013): 2151-e1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24237776     

About the author:

Dr. Devid Zille leads the Patient-Specific Implant initiative for Osteomed, one of the world’s largest small-bone implant manufacturers, dealing with Maxillofacial, Neuro, and Extremities surgery. He is a post-graduate in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery mainly focused on the correction of facial deformities. His expertise includes 3D modeling and design using advanced concepts like lightweight structures and topological optimization based on FEA analysis and 3D printing.

You may also like:

Interview: Dr. Pedro Martinez Seijas, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, Spain

Interview: Dr. Shi Jun (史俊), Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, China

The post The Past and Present of 3D Printing in Maxillofacial Surgery 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.

Gabe Linke has been in the imaging profession for over 10 years as a technologist in MRI. He received his Bachelors in Radiation Sciences from the University of Nebraska Medical Center. 2 years ago he became the Cardiac Imaging & 3D Printing Coordinator for Children’s Hospital and Medical Center in Omaha Nebraska. His original duties involved overseeing Cardiac CT and MRI and starting their 3D printing program. This program started with 3D printing cardiac models for presurgical planning. It has since grown outside of cardiology and is hospital-wide serving multiple subspecialties with presurgical planning, educational modeling, and numerous research applications. Gabe will also be a speaker for our upcoming 3DHEALS OMAHA: AdvancedTek, Healthcare 3D Printing event.

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

Gabe: I experienced 3D printing for the first time when I accepted my position at Omaha Children’s Hospital. I was in my second interview for a cardiac imaging coordinator position and Dr. Scott Fletcher handed me a printed heart from a case they had done.  It blew me away to hold the replica of the child’s heart in my hand and I immediately could see the potential this technology would have to impact healthcare.

Jenny: What inspired you to start your journey in 3D printing (bio-fabrication/bio-printing)?

Gabe: After accepting the job at Omaha Children’s I was shown the printer that we had received as a gift to start our own in-house 3D printing program. The program started in Cardiology, but as I saw the way these 3D Models impacted the way our Cardio-thoracic surgeons I knew we had to do more. Seeing the impact in the first few cases inspired me to go to my directors and expand the program to a hospital-wide 3D printing service.

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.

Gabe: I think I would have to say Dr. Scott Fletcher after my answer earlier right? Scott gave me the gift of this job and I will forever be grateful to him. He has taught me so much about congenital cardiology and has supported me every step of the way as this program continues to grow.

Dr. Jorge Zuniga has taught me so much about the technology of 3D printing and the global impact we can have using this technology together. I very early on adopted his vision for open collaboration is paramount in a successful program. I am honored to call him a personal friend and colleague.

Jenny: What motivates you the most for your work?

Gabe: Our patients, period. I joined the medical profession for one reason and that was to help people. Seeing a child set down an iPad to better understand why he’s having an operation, hearing a surgeon speak on how they did a better procedure or operation due to a 3D model, or hearing how much better a nurse can do her job because she was handed a 3D model of a patient’s heart. All of these are helping a patient through one means or another to have better care.

Jenny: What is/are the biggest obstacle(s) in your line of work? If you have conquered them, what were your solutions?

Gabe: One of the biggest obstacles, was growing our program outside of Cardiology. My solution was easy:  Dr. Lincoln Wong. Dr. Wong, one of our radiologists, adopted this technology and showed it to everyone. He would be reading a case and see where the application could help a surgeon and would have a model made. He would take these models to the surgeons and that was it. Our hospital now prints for multiple subspecialties and we continue to grow. Dr. Wong’s passion for 3D printing has been paramount in the expansion of our program.

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)?

Gabe: I have to admit that I have to answer this from a perspective that I do not personally know. Omaha Children’s has been very supportive of its 3D Printing Program, but in general, I think that funding for these programs is the biggest challenge. This will take care of itself in time, as I believe that reimbursement is inevitable based on the positive impacts 3D models are having on patient care.

Jenny: If you are granted three wishes by a higher being, what would they be?

Gabe:

1. A life full of love: it is the single most powerful thing in the universe and can overcome anything put in its way.
2. The cure for mental illness/addiction.
3. The Flashes Speed ( had to lighten the mood a little)

Jenny: What advice would you give to a smart driven college student in the “real world”? What bad advice you heard should they ignore?

Gabe: Find something that you’re passionate about and you enjoy doing and figure out how to turn it into your job.

Bad advice: Do a job just for the money.

The post Interview: Gabe Linke, 3D Printing Coordinator, Omaha Children’s Hospital 🗓 appeared first on 3DHeals.

Martine Herzmann is an experienced MedTec professional who is responsible since 2015 as Sales Manager for the Medical Portfolio of Materialise in all German-speaking countries. The 3D printing portfolio of Materialise ranges from cardiovascular to orthopedic and CMF for hospitals as well as for MedTech companies and academic institutes. Before joining Materialise in 2015 Martin established the role of Director Global Marketing at Ziehm Imaging in Nuremberg (a German X-ray company for intraoperative imaging) and significantly influenced 8 years Ziehm Imaging´s marketing activities. Another 8 years ago – in 1999 – Martin started his MedTech career at Brainlab where he fulfilled different roles in Sales, Marketing and finally Business Development. Martin holds a degree in business administration which rounds up his in-depth understanding of planning software, intraoperative navigation, different imaging modalities and 3D printing.

Martin will be a speaker for our upcoming Munich event. 

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

Martin: I experienced 3d printing in CMF in 2005 the first time and was impressed about the clinical relevance in those days to visualize anatomy and explain complex procedures.

Jenny: What inspired you to start your journey/company/career/research in 3D printing (bio-fabrication/bio-printing)?

Martin: Since 1999 I am working in MedTech industries and was able to spearhead intraoperative navigation, intraoperative 3d imaging. In 2015 Materialise and I and both agreed on the potential of the German-speaking medical market in 3D printing and 3D planning software and joined forces. Why Materialise? It is the joy of growth, of innovation and of the possibility to shape a market.

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.

Martin: Zion certainly as a patient.  Professor Gellrich in Hannover as a visionary surgeon.  Brigitte de Vet as a strategic sparring partner in my organization.

Jenny: What motivates you the most for your work?

Martin: The joy of growth for the organization and successful treatments of patients

Jenny: What is/are the biggest obstacle(s) in your line of work? If you have conquered them, what were your solutions?

Martin: Setting priorities and gaining an overview of multiple opportunities.

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)?

Martin: Challenge: Translation from science to patient care.

Jenny: If you are granted three wishes by a higher being, what would they be?

Martin: Health, luck, joy for rest of my life.

Jenny: What advice would you give to a smart driven college student in the “real world”? What bad advices you heard should they ignore?

Martin: If you face an inner conflict between your brain and your gut feeling, then trust your gut feeling.

The post Interview: Martin Herzmann, Materialise GmbH appeared first on 3DHeals.

Sujatha Buddhe, MBBS, MS, is an attending physician at the Seattle Children’s Hospital and assistant professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine. Dr. Buddhe earned her medical degree from the Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, India. She completed her pediatrics residency at the Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center, NY and pediatric cardiology fellowship at the Children’s Hospital of Michigan. Her advanced fellowship training in pediatric cardiac non-invasive imaging was completed at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital in New York. She earned her Master’s degree in Clinical research and statistical analysis at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She is board certified in pediatrics and pediatric cardiology.

Dr. Buddhe will be a speaker at the Seattle, Washington event!

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

Sujatha: My first experience was when I started in Seattle Children’s. We then just started using 3D printing for planning complex intracardiac surgeries. Initially, as always, we were skeptical about the approach. As we started using this more, we found it extremely useful and amazing every time.
Jenny: What inspired you to start your journey in 3D printing?

Sujatha: Seeing how it can improve patient outcomes. I am also inspired by how we could improve parent/medical personnel education.

Jenny: Who inspired you the most along this journey in 3D printing?  

Sujatha: My mentor Dr. Stephen Seslar

Jenny: What motivates you the most for your work?

Sujatha: My patients. The possibilities for making a positive difference.

Jenny: What is/are the biggest obstacle(s) in your line of work? If you have conquered them, what were your solutions?

Sujatha: Time and Funding.

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)?

Sujatha: Biggest challenges are funding/reimbursement.
Solutions are studies demonstrating the effectiveness and clinical use of these modalities

Jenny: What advice would you give to a smart driven college student in the “real world”? What bad advice you heard should they ignore?

Sujatha: The possibilities are endless. Just give your best effort and never let anyone tell you otherwise.

Jenny: What do you enjoy in your spare time? What are you passionate about outside of your work/3d printing?

Sujatha: Spending time with my family/kids, traveling, cooking.

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

Sujatha: Using 3dimensional models either by printing or by novel visualization modalities (hopefully with bio-printing) to heal our patient’s hearts and improve our communication/education/understanding.

Check out these interviews:

Interview: Sean Looi, General Manager of Creatz3D Pte Ltd

Interview: Daisy Zhu, Co-founder of 3D Science Valley

Interview: Dr. Chen Ching Kit, Pediatric Cardic 3D Printing, Singapore

The post Interview: Dr. Sujatha Buddhe, Pediatric 3D Printing, Seattle appeared first on 3DHeals.

Dr. Jenny Chen is trained as a neuroradiologist, founder/CEO of 3DHEALS. Her main interests include medical education, 3D printing in the healthcare sector, and artificial intelligence. She is also a current adjunct clinical faculty in the radiology department at Stanford Healthcare.
 
 
 
 
Tell us a little about yourself and how you ended up specializing and developing an expertise in 3D Printing in Healthcare?
Jenny: The first time I ever touched a 3D printed anatomical model was during 2011 RSNA, and that moment was transformative. Throughout our professional lives as radiologists, we are used to reconstructed black and white 2D images from the monitors into a 3D structure in our minds and formulate a story around it for the patient. For the first time in my life, I am in the same physical world with the patient’s illness. That barrier between the digital world and physical world has been suddenly removed. What was entirely in the digital world can now be in the physical world, and I could interact with it. That experience was amazing and at the same time perplexing. I think that is the moment when pure “human-computer interaction” happens. Some of this experience still cannot be verbalized or understood, and I think that is still fascinating. We are now at a time when information can be freely transferred between the digital world and the physical world with the availability of digital manufacturing.
What is 3DHEALS?
Jenny: All the good names were taken, so we ended up with “3DHEALS”. 
3DHEALS is a platform for people to learn about the power of 3D printing and people who want to use it to create meaningful solutions in the healthcare vertical. As a company, our first goal is to create opportunities for people to learn new skills, science, and truth about the technology and not the hype. In fact, the media hype often overshadows the true power of the technologies. We believe this technology will create many new job opportunities in the healthcare industry.
In the past six months, we have also started to achieve our second mission of connecting the world, by creating healthcare 3D printing communities all over the world. We now have more than 15 passionate community managers in 12 cities globally, and that aspect of the company is growing organically. We did not expect this kind of expansion, but we are delighted to see the curiosity and passion for our communities. It is very touching.
Finally, we want to help organizations and lawmakers with understanding healthcare needs and facilitate conversations among healthcare providers, policymakers, and industries so that everyone can be on the same page to solve problems faced by the industry. Both healthcare and manufacturing are highly regulated and complex systems, and it is an important often missed point that people from these different systems cannot communicate effectively. We just had our first executive programs last week in Washington DC.
What is hype and what is the reality around 3D Printing
Jenny: Hype: Ignore all the projected numbers of industry analysts. Little kids or NFL players are the perfect PR people, but the glamorous photos with their prosthesis or arm casts overshadow what can really be done with this trillion-dollar worth technology that is currently under-developed in the healthcare vertical, where I personally believe will deliver the first breakthrough innovations using 3D printing. People may be awed by the media photos and stopped to learn the true power of the technology.
What is the reality? One concept, complexity for free, is revolutionary. Complex geometries that are impossible to produce by conventional manufacturing can now be produced by 3D printing at no additional cost. That is a miracle. That is zero-to-one.
What is also reality is that Align Technology (the company that makes Invisalign) has quietly used the technology to build a company that is now worth 20 billion dollars over the last twenty years, with 1 billion dollars annual revenue. Few other companies have done this. Align is making profits because it is producing a much cheaper, convenient, and better product for the patients compared to the traditional dental braces. When there is value, patients will recognize it and reward it. That’s reality. If no one is paying for it, then it is a hype. Reimbursement worries should be included in the discussion, but my question is always if anyone is willing to pay for it without reimbursement. That is a kind of litmus test.
Where is the real impact and where should researchers, industry, and healthcare professionals focus to leverage the true impact of 3D?
Jenny: That is an expensive question and I think many companies and entrepreneurs are dying to know the answer to that. I think what I can make an impact in the space RIGHT NOW is by achieving 3DHEALS’ three missions: education, connecting the world, and facilitate conversations in policies/standardization.
Name some innovators and changemakers in the field? Why are they change makers?
Jenny: Over the last two years, I have had the fortune to encounter a series of entrepreneurs in the space. I have concluded that these people share two common characteristics: 1. They are intimately experienced with the illness. They are emotionally invested in solving the problem, which makes them super focused. 2. They are very educated about the technologies and have access to them.
For example, Jeff Huber, the CEO of Standard Cyborg, was born with lower extremity congenital abnormality and needed to get fitted prosthesis all his life. Now that he is an engineer, he invented a more efficient and effective 3D printing digital workflow for making the prosthesis. Dr. Christopher Hart is a dentist from Australia, whom himself suffer sleep apnea. He founded the company Oventus, which creates the 3D printed mouthpiece for sleep apnea patients. There are many more stories like these.
Who inspired you the most along this journey in 3D printing? This can be a mentor, a patient, a celebrity, anyone basically. You can name more than one as well.
Jenny: There are so many! All the speakers for 3DHEALS2017 and 3DHEALS2018 to begin with. Everyone has a unique and impressive record, vision, and hardships. Most importantly, all of them went in this challenging field with a gusto. They are the ultimate “intelligent” risk takers. They are equipped with knowledge but not intimated by the knowledge of potential failure.
What motivates you the most for your work?
Jenny: The people! There is no doubt. It is an enjoyment to be able to discuss ideas with whom I believe to be the most inspiring and smartest people in the world. It is a great feeling to have when you are with a group of people who not only do not think your ideas are crazy, but they encourage you to have more of those ideas. These people are actively working on solutions for them as well. I feel our brainwaves are in sync.
The people in 3DHEALS community is the biggest driving force behind my work.

(Photo: 3DHEALS community from Spain, Germany, Canada, Dubai, and more)
What is/are the biggest obstacle(s) in your line of work? If you have conquered them, what were your solutions?
Jenny: Status quo.
My role is to promote startups, innovators, early healthcare adopters while being agnostic of their affiliation. Good technologies, stories, and practices should be known to everyone because this will inspire others either in a garage labor in a large academic institution to invent new solutions for us all. 3DHEALS will be that vessel to achieve this goal.
If you are granted three wishes by a higher being, what would they be? 
Jenny:

1. ·      More innovations/startups in healthcare 3D printing and bio-printing.
2. ·      Less expensive regulatory approval process.
3. ·      Replacement tissue and organs becoming a reality soon.

What advice would you give to a smart driven college student in the “real world”? What bad advice you heard should they ignore?
Jenny: Despite being a product of decades of academic training and often “teacher’s pet”, I hate schools. I think the current established academic institution is doing a disservice to our young people. If I knew what I know now while in college, my number one task would be to learn more about myself. This is not cliché. Knowing oneself well will allow you to define a goal that will be a better motivation than anyone else’ dream or influence. That’s the homework that will not be scored but so much more important as a young person. Find the best adventure and journey you would like to spend your life energy on. You can play a game that is designed by others, or you can design your original version. How exciting can that be?
Bad advice: Bad advice often comes from people who love and care about you the most. Mine came from my mother when it comes to career choices. She wants me to have a “relaxing job” and was against of me taking up a career in medicine because it is an obviously stressful job and will delay what a woman in her times need to accomplish: family and kids. While I love my family, looking back, had I become anything but a physician, my life will be a disappointment to MYSELF.
What was/is the biggest risk you took in your career?
Jenny: I can live a very comfortable life as a radiologist. Founding 3DHEALS is one of the biggest risks I took. Not only I now have zero leisure time, I have received more rejections than I ever have in my life, and it still hurts. But the vision for the field and the people in 3DHEALS community keep me going. 
What do you enjoy in your spare time? What are you passionate about outside of your work/3d printing?
Jenny: I enjoy playing drums/music with a few good friends. It is a priority for me to make time for my family and friends. I think 3D Printing/bio-printing really occupy most of our leisure time at this time. It is such a fascinating field and well worth my time. Fortunately, I have a lot of friends in the field. =)

The post Interview with 3DHEALS Founder Dr. Jenny Chen appeared first on 3DHeals.

Dr. Michael Scherer is an Assistant Clinical Professor at Loma Linda University, a Clinical Instructor at University of Nevada –Las Vegas, and maintains a practice limited to prosthodontics and implant dentistry in Sonora, California. He is a fellow of the American College of Prosthodontists, has published articles, DVD training series, and in‐person and online courses related to implant dentistry, clinical prosthodontics, and digital technology with a special emphasis on implant over dentures. As an avid technology & computer hobbyist, Dr. Scherer’s involvement in digital implant dentistry has led him to develop and utilize new technology with CAD/CAM surgical systems, implement interactive CBCT implant planning, and outside of the box radiographic imaging concepts. Dr. Scherer also maintains two online courses: 1‐ Fast‐Track Digital Dentistry & 3D Printing, 2‐ Fast‐Track Full‐Arch Reconstruction Implant Overdentures, and five YouTube channels: “LearnLOCATOR”, “LearnLODI”, “LearnSATURNO”, “LearnLOCATOR F‐Tx” and “The 3D Dentist”‐ popular YouTube channels on dental implant procedures and digital dentistry.
Dr. Scherer will be a speaker at 3DHEALS2018.
Jenny: When was the first encounter you had with 3D printing? What was that experience like? What were you thinking at that moment?
Michael: Thank you for the opportunity to have this interview! I began working with 3D printing early in practice in the form of surgical templates to assist in dental implant positioning. The original guides were printed in Europe, had to travel via customs, and were incredibly expensive. Looking back, it was a paradigm shift. Wow, things have changed!
Jenny: What inspired you to start your journey/company/career/research in 3D printing (bio-fabrication/bio-printing)?
Michael: To democratize the system and make printing available via reasonably priced systems, open-source software, and printers that were available to clinicians around the world. I knew from day 1 that it was going to be big for clinical dental practice, but there were so many barriers to implementation. Slowly but surely we have begun to break down each one of those and are starting to see the proliferation of desktop-grade printers in our industry.
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.
Michael: When I got started with these workflows, very few or even any other dentists were actually using 3d printers in their practices. There were early leaders in 3D printing techniques within dentistry, such as Dr. Ganz who is a leader in 3D imaging and some of the incredible people at Loma Linda University Implant Dentistry department and their pioneering work in “rapid prototyping” of mandibles for dental implant reconstruction in 1983-1985.
Jenny: What motivates you the most for your work?
Michael: I am motivated by being able to see the smiles on my patients’ faces when I show them what we can do with dental 3D printing and modern technology. I have one patient, Jan, who is an older lady that loves rubber ducks. I asked her to bring in her favorite rubber duck and I offered to print an exact copy of it. Using my dental x-ray machine, I was able to scan the duck, create a model out of it, and then 3D print one for her. I was blown away by how touched she was… and will never forget her smile.
Jenny: What is/are the biggest obstacle(s) in your line of work? If you have conquered them, what were your solutions?
Michael: People who say it can’t be done. There are many naysayers and those who have motivations other than improving the quality of care and bringing enhanced access to modern technology. I enjoy the challenge of proving them it can be done.
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)?
Michael: A lack of real and useful biocompatible materials. Regulatory agencies need to make the approval process easier and less expensive than it currently is. We have the computing technology to do almost anything but we don’t have materials that can be used intraorally or those we have are very limited in scope.
Jenny: What advice would you give to a smart driven college student in the “real world”? What bad advice you heard should they ignore?
Michael: Respect your professors yet challenge them every day. Have perspective and ask questions yet understand where we have come from. Do not settle for “this is the way we have always done things” and most certainly never stop pushing.
Jenny: If you could have a giant billboard to promote a message to millions and even billions of people in our community (i.e. healthcare 3D printing and bio-fabrication), what message would that be?
Michael: The most important rule: “You have to have fun while doing this or else it won’t go the distance.” I began this journey when I was young… playing video games. An insane amount of Atari/Nintendo/early Computers. It must be fun to do and not boring, there always should be a challenge, a jump you can’t seem to make in level 9, to keep us going. Like Jobs’ said, “Stay hungry, stay foolish.” I live this mantra daily.
Jenny: What were/was the best investment you made in 3D printing/bio-printing/bio-fabrication?
Michael: Absolutely my first Formlabs printer. It wasn’t my first printer, in fact, I owned 5 of them prior to my first Formlabs, but it was my first printer that just got the job done, rather than spending hours “troubleshooting.”It’s been a really fun journey since then and figuring out what works for dentistry.
Jenny: What does the word “3DHEALS” mean to you? =)
Michael: It’s our commitment to improving worldwide healthcare through the use of additive manufacturing, digital technology, and innovation but also at a reasonable cost. It’s about stoking the fire within each and every one of us to better push ourselves to drive healthcare into the 21st century.

The post Interview: Dr. Michael D Scherer On Digital Dentistry – "The original guides were printed in Europe, had to travel via customs, and were incredibly expensive. Looking back, it was a paradigm shift. Wow, things have changed!" appeared first on 3DHeals.