In the previous section of this guide, we went in-depth about the financial issues surrounding 3D printing in hospitals, which includes discussions on reimbursement, revenue strategies, and cost analysis for 3D printing in hospitals. In this final section of this guide, we created a sample financial analysis spreadsheet, which you can use as a basic framework to construct a financial plan for setting up a 3D printing service. (29,30) The following is a discussion of two hypothetical scenarios to demonstrate how this spreadsheet works. Please be aware that the values used could vary widely and should not be used as reference numbers. For example, the construction of a dedicated area for a 3D printer is highly variable depending on the hospital, geography, type of machine, regulatory requirements, etc. Also, the pricing of machines, tools, and materials has also changed significantly as 3D printing is an ever-changing landscape that experienced exponential growth since the publication of the original book. While we update these guides regularly to reflect such changes, the numbers should be used as hypothetical, and not literal, values.

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

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 💡Healthcare 3D Printing💡 (@3dheals)

In Hospital 3D Printing Service Financial Plan:

Downloadable version (Paid Members Only)

The Worksheet:

Revenue:

A community-based subspecialty hospital wants to justify setting up a 3D printing center for cardiothoracic surgeries. They want to expand this service to other specialties but want to start with the cardiothoracic department, using 3D printed models as part of patient education and pre-surgical planning.  For this service, they plan to charge $5000 per printing service. After accounting for all Medicare/Medicaid discounts, or insurance reimbursement, they are receiving $4000 per print in net revenue.  The hospital has determined that 30 patients out of 300 patients per year would benefit from the model and that the new service will attract two new patients as a result.  Thus, the hospital will start their planning calculations for the first year at 32 prints at $4000/print leading to $128,000 in revenue. The two new patients per year each increased an additional $40000 surgical revenue to the hospital.  The total net revenue is $168,000 for the first year.  

Capital Expense:

Next, they determine what equipment is to be purchased based on their application and needs.   Since this is used in pre-surgical planning, precision/accuracy, good resolution, and sterilizable material are all important. In cardiac cases, time is often of the essence where turnaround time needs to be in 1 or 2 days.  Thus, a high-speed printer is required. Multicolor is useful in showing complex anatomies including the vascular structures.  Options for a flexible material to create models with tactile features are also gaining popularity for pre-surgical practice in high stake cases. A typical machine that meets these requirements would be Stratasys Objet500 Connex 3, which costs roughly $300,000 including a maintenance contract.  

The hospital has a well-developed radiology team that is versed in 3D imaging.  To make the 3D print, a radiologist will spend on average 4 hours more than their usual time, at $200/hr to perform the detailed segmentation.  Approximately $26,000 will therefore be spent on radiologists’ time per year for 32 cases. 

The technologist requirement is estimated to start and remain at a one-half person for 10 years.  Their salary is estimated at $60,000 per year so the technologist’s cost is $30,000 per year. 

The installation fee (including transportation) is $1000.  Remodeling costs are estimated at $400 per square foot in a 150 square foot room, for a total of $60,000.  The cost of training is estimated at $5000.  It is assumed that any insurance needs are already covered by the hospital, thus no additional insurance is required. Again, these numbers are highly hypothetical and will vary significantly, depending on existing infrastructures.

Results:

The “results” spreadsheet looks at the cash flow over 10 years. First, the gross revenue is calculated by multiplying the number of procedures by the amount charged per procedure.   The revenue is then adjusted to take into account the mix of discounts and patients with Medicare, Medicaid, etc.   Added to this is an additional revenue generated, such as from new patients, over and above that from the new procedure.    This sum is the net revenue – the additional cash taken in due to the 3D printing.  In our example in the out-source model in Year 1, we have 32 procedures at $5000 per procedure for gross revenue of $160,000.  After discounts, our revenue drops to $128,000. However, we attract new patients who have additional procedures. That additional revenue of $40,000 brings our net revenue to $168,000.

Next, the costs are accounted for. As described earlier, there are fixed and variable costs, which are seen in the in-house model.  For the in-hospital model, there is a significant cost of acquisition, which amounts to $367,600. 

 The annual fixed cost is estimated to be 32,000, assuming an additional half-time technologist is needed. The variable cost is about 800 per print, assuming a total of four hours of post-processing time is needed from the radiologists. The total annual fixed cost is, therefore, again, 25,600.

The sum of the costs is the net expenses. In our Year 1 case, the costs are what we are paying to set up the 3D printing center and to hire a new technologist.  In addition, we have the additional cost of a radiologist’s time at $200 per print, assuming approximately 4-hour post-processing time from the radiologist.  The total of these costs is $425,200 of expenses.  

The net income is the difference between the net revenue and the net expenses. If the number is positive, you have a profit. If it is negative, there is a loss. Our example shows a loss of $257,200 for the first year.

The breakeven volume is the number of procedures needed to have no profit – where the revenues and the expenses match.  In this spreadsheet, the additional revenue comes from new procedures attracted due to the employment of the new technology. We assume two new patients will be attracted for year 1. We also assume a subsequent 10% increase in new patients in subsequent years. Obviously, patients come in integer, and 10% is more of an average annual percentage growth spread over a 10-year period.  The Year 1 breakeven is 125 prints. Since we only did 32 prints, we end up with a loss, even accounting for additional procedural revenue.

The net present value (NPV) is the value of the 10 years’ worth of net income in today’s dollars.  Due to inflation, $10 today is worth more than $10 a year from now. To determine the total worth of the project for 10 years in today’s dollars, the values for Years 2 – 10 need to be discounted.  The rate at which they are discounted is decided by the analyst. That rate is filled in on the Worksheet tab and is used to calculate the results.  Using a 2% discount rate, which is set on B57 on the “worksheet” section of Table VI, we see an NPV of approximately $ $1,359,600 over 10 years.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 💡Healthcare 3D Printing💡 (@3dheals)

Outsource 3D Printing Service Financial Plan:

Downloadable version (Paid Members Only)

A community-based subspecialty hospital wants to justify setting up a 3D printing center for cardiothoracic surgeries. They want to expand this service to other specialties but want to start with the cardiothoracic department, using 3D printed models as part of patient education and pre-surgical planning.  

Similarly, for this service, they plan to charge such that after all Medicare and various discounts, they are receiving $4000 per print in net revenue.  However, hesitant to invest significant capital upfront, they decided to use a third-party vendor to both design and manufacture the 3D prints. This vendor has a minimal turnaround time of one week for each procedure, therefore limiting usage to less emergent cases that would require a 1-2 day turnaround time. 

Subsequently, the hospital has determined that 20 patients out of 300 patients per year would benefit from the model and that the new service will attract two new patients as a result.  Thus, the hospital will start their planning calculations for the first year with 22 prints at $4000/print leading to $88,000 in revenue. The two new patients per year each increased additional $40,000 surgical revenue to the hospital, assuming each surgery will generate 20,000 in revenue.  The total net revenue thus is $128,000 for the first year.   

The hospital will pay  $4000 per print with the outside vendor. 

Results:

The “results” spreadsheet looks at the cash flow over 10 years. First, the gross revenue is calculated by multiplying the number of procedures by the amount charged per procedure.   The revenue is then adjusted to take into account the mix of discounts and patients with Medicare, Medicaid, etc.   Added to this is an additional revenue generated, such as from new patients, over and above that from the new procedure.    This sum is the net revenue – the additional cash taken in due to the 3D printing.  In our example in the out-source model in Year 1, we have 22 procedures at $5000 per procedure for gross revenue of $110,000.  After discounts our revenue drops to $88,000 however, we bring in new patients who have additional procedures. That additional revenue of $40,000 brings our net revenue to $128,000.

Next, the costs are accounted for. As described earlier, there are fixed and variable costs, which are seen in the in-house model.  For the outsourcing model, there is no cost of acquisition. The sum of the costs is the net expenses. In our Year 1 case, the costs are what we are paying a vendor for the prints, which totals $4050 per print.  In addition, we have the cost of a radiologist’s time at $200 per print, assuming approximately 1-hour of design time from the radiologist.  The total of these costs is $93,500 in expenses.  

The net income is the difference between the net revenue and the net expenses. If the number is positive, you have a profit. If it is negative, there is a loss. Our example shows a profit of $33,500 for the first year.

 The breakeven volume is the number of procedures needed to have no profit – where the revenues and the expenses match.  In this spreadsheet, the additional revenue comes from new procedures attracted due to the employment of the new technology. We assume two new patients will be attracted for year 1. We also assume a subsequent 10% increase in new patients in subsequent years. Obviously, patients come in integer, and 10% is more of an average annual percentage growth spread over a 10-year period.  The Year 1 breakeven is 23 prints. Since we only did 22 prints, we should have a loss. The additional revenue brought in gives us a positive result.

The net present value (NPV) is the value of the 10 years’ worth of net income in today’s dollars.  Due to inflation, $10 today is worth more than $10 a year from now. To determine the total worth of the project for 10 years in today’s dollars, the values for Years 2 – 10 need to be discounted.  The rate at which they are discounted is decided by the analyst. That rate is filled in on the Worksheet tab and is used to calculate the results.  Using a 2% discount rate, which is set on B57 on the “worksheet” section of Table VII, we see an NPV of approximately $523K.

 With these two hypothetical scenarios, a graph of return on investment over a ten-year period can be generated.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 💡Healthcare 3D Printing💡 (@3dheals)

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 Financial Analysis Worksheets (Downloadable) for 3D Printing in Hospitals – Guide 5/5 appeared first on 3DHeals.

Adam Jakus, Ph.D.: is the co-founder and Chief Technology of Dimension Inx LLC, a start-up developing transformative advanced manufacturing materials and processes for medical and non-medical spaces. Adam received his BS and MS degrees in Materials Science and Engineering from Georgia Tech, where he worked on the development and testing of new energetic material systems. In 2010, he began working at Northwestern University with Dimension Inx’s other co-founder, Ramille Shah, Ph.D. While at Northwestern, Adam invented and developed an entirely new, materials-centric approach to 3D printing and advanced manufacturing, now referred to as 3D-Painting, and hundreds of new 3D-printable materials for medical and non-medical purposes. These materials include, but are not limited to the high tissue and organ regenerative Hyperelastic Bone™, 3D-Graphene, Tissue Papers, and Fluffy-X. With approximately 10 years and many thousands of hours of bioprinting and tissue regenerative 3D-Printing experience, Adam leads the field, providing expertise to several not-for-profit bodies looking to establish guidelines, guidance, and certifications related to the emerging fields of tissue and organ fabrication. He is the author of numerous granted and pending patents, high-impact medical and non-medical publications, book chapters, and editorials related to advanced manufacturing and 3D printing of biomaterials and non-materials. Dr. Jakus will be a speaker at the upcoming 3DHEALS virtual event: NAMIC/3DHEALS Startup ShowCase

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 💡Healthcare 3D Printing💡 (@3dheals)

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

Adam: My first experience with 3D-printing/additive manufacturing was back in late 2010/2011 as part of Prof. Ramille Shah’s newly established research lab at Northwestern University (no longer at Northwestern), when our group purchased one of the very first Manufacturing Series 3D-BioPlotters from EnvisionTEC. My initial thoughts were “This is really neat, but the materials currently compatible with the system are terrible for biological/clinical applications and just terrible in general” and “these materials that do exist are a real pain to print”. As a Materials Engineer, upon thinking that, I realized there was a major need and an opportunity to focus on developing new 3D-Printable materials of all kinds, not just biomaterials, that were not only highly functional (beyond materials for models or inert gels like alginates, celluloses, gel-Mas, etc.,  thermoplastics like PCLs, PLAs, PEEKs, etc., the endless variety of photopolymers, simple metals and alloys; all of which were still quite common in the field in the 2000s and early 2010s), but also very scalable, easy to implement, and infinitely versatile. That thought, combined with my prior 5-6 years research experience with creating structural thermites and other “energetic” materials, made me realize that were endless opportunities before me with this neat, but ultimately simple (just an X, Y, Z extruder) machine. These efforts resulted in the development of what is now referred to as the 3D-Paint and 3D-Painting technology platform – a exceptionally versatile means of designing and producing a near endless variety of 3D-printable materials (from biomaterials, to electronic materials, ceramics, metals and alloys, and every extraterrestrial materials), including what we now call Hyperelastic Bone™ (First demonstrated in 2011), 3D-Graphene, Fluffy-X™, Tissue Papers, 3D-Metals and 3D-Alloys, and more. As 3D-printing was becoming increasingly popular among industry and enthusiasts, it was clear there was a real need for new materials beyond those previously mentioned. Thus, Ramille Shah and I founded Dimension Inx in 2016 – with the goal of not only transforming medicine but also the broader manufacturing industry. 

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

Adam: As mentioned previously, I somewhat stumbled into it initially. Upon seeing a really advanced piece of 3D-Printing machinery with great hardware and software, but very limited materials capabilities, I saw an opportunity/unmet need. As I learned more about the field, I also thought it was crazy that so much effort was being spent on hardware and software related to 3D-Printing but not the actual material that was to be 3D-Printed. Even with the most advanced piece of machinery in the world, if you can only print inert plastics, simple metals, non-clinically relevant gels, what is the point? As the development of the new materials progressed, and as broader awareness and education of 3D-printing increased among researchers and industry, there was increasing demand from researchers, industry, and physicians, our new advanced 3D-printable materials – a demand we could not sustain as being part of a not-for-profit University. Thus, Ramille Shah and I founded Dimension Inx in 2016, where I Have been full time since 2017. 

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

Adam: I can’t say that anyone, in particular, inspired me during this time. But the continuous affirmation from researchers, doctors, and industry that they really needed something different from the basic hydrogels, thermoplastics, photopolymers, and metals and alloys kept my energy high throughout the entire process. Also, it is incredibly exciting to hand a new material, in 3D-printed form, to a physician and see their excitement when they learn what it is and what it does – the number of ideas they generate when they realize, for example, that a bioceramic can be flexible and surgically friendly (or a flexible graphene patch can be rapidly produced), is inspiring.  These professionals have been stuck with existing materials for so long, they didn’t realize certain things were not only possible but now available. 

Jenny: What motivates you the most for your work? 

Adam: Two things motivate me the most. First, at my core, I am a materials engineer. In the same way, mechanical or electrical engineering might enjoy tinkering to create new pieces of machinery or electronics, I get substantial joy and fulfillment from tinkering with materials and processes to create new materials with properties that didn’t previously exist. That curiosity and seeing what I can do and how I can push materials motivates me intellectually. Second, at the end of my days of designing new materials, it is extremely motivating to know that they serve a real need and can potentially make the lives of others better or save their lives outright. One needs this real motivation on the medical side of things because it is a slow process to get it to patients, especially when you are talking about revolutionary new technologies.

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

Adam: In medical 3D-Printing in general, I would say there are two major classes of obstacles: hype/undereducation and lack of relevant materials. On the first item, hype/undereducation, I, unfortunately, find myself having to correct misperceptions and poor knowledge primarily generated by social and traditional media. The lack of knowledge of the field, which is still not taught in most universities to science or engineering students (that needs to change), is pervasive among not only the general public but also academics, researchers, industry, investors, physicians, and others, in combination with easy means of sharing stories via social media, creates a very challenging environment and slows down the progression of the field. A broad example is equating surgical model 3D-printing, with advanced biomaterial (regenerative) 3D-printing, and bioprinting (printing lives cells and tissues). These are very different fields, with the first being around for ~30 years and approaching the standard of care in many places, and the latter, being older than most expect (the early 2000s). Because of this lack of awareness, even academic and industry researchers spend significant time and resources “reinventing the wheel” of technologies first established and tried in the early 2000s or even earlier. Additionally, lack of knowledge of the field among government funding organizations led to a big gap of funding in the early 2010s for advanced 3D-printing technologies (but they were being equated to surgical models). These organizations are finally beginning to fund research in this area, but missed a major opportunity in the early 2010s.

On the technical side of things, the major obstacle has always been materials. The common materials we see being 3D-printed in medicine today have been 3D-printed and applied for 20-30 years. They’re not new, nor is 3D-printing or additive manufacturing technology. Materials matter… a 3D-printed plastic heart, regardless of how many colors it has, may be good for surgical planning and education, but it would never be suitable as a substitution for the actual heart. Geometry the same, the difference in materials. The biological heart needs to be comprised of living materials or very highly bioactive materials that transform into living material in the presence of biological signaling. This is very different from plastic or even metal. As the field does become more educated, however, the realization that materials matter is becoming more and more prevalent and more and more materials engineers are joining the field. 

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)?

Adam: See previous response. The biggest challenges, at the moment, are education/cutting through hype and misinformation, funding (connected to education), and lack of available materials. A first step would be to establish a certified university curriculum around Medical 3D-Printing, with two distinct tracts: surgical modeling, guides, permanent implantables, and advanced biomaterials and bioprinting. An additional step would be for those of us who are deep in the field to actively educate and counter inaccurate stories when we seem. Finally, a body of knowledge, certifications, and quality and standards need to be established – which is currently the focus of several major US national organizations. 

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

Adam:

1. To have more time in the day.
2. To be able to know instantly if someone needs medical help and has problems that could be addressed by our materials.

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

Adam: Most important piece of advice I can give is “diversify your knowledge”. IF you want to go into bioprinting, get experience/education doing something else first (metallurgy, art, mechanical engineering, anything else), then get into the field. What is common, every day, and unremarkable in one field may be unheard of in another. It is important to bring that diversity into the field you want to pursue. If everyone in the same field has the same knowledge and training, how can the field expect to progress? Second, specifically for the world of 3D-printing (medical and non-medical), university education and research is typically farther behind what is known and already being done in the industry – this is quite unique to this field (it is usually the other way around). As such, I encourage students to go to industry shows and events rather than just academic/research events. You’ll be amazed at the differences in this field. 

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? 

Adam: “Biofabrication: Let’s work together!” I say that because there are too many islands of efforts right now, with many groups reinventing the wheel or completely unaware of what is being done by other groups. The technology is there, the motivation is there, the need is there – it’s just a matter of education and communication at this point. 

Jenny: What were/was the best investment you made in 3D printing/bio-printing/bio-fabrication? 

Adam: Throwing my whole life behind new materials development for 3D-printing.

Jenny: What were/was the worst investment you made in 3D printing/bio-printing/bio-fabrication? 

Adam: Can’t think of one, other than possibly spending too much time of my time pursuing this while in academia. Academia is still catching up to where the technology actually is. 

Jenny: What was/is the biggest risk you took in your career?

Adam: Co-Founding and putting all my resources into our current company, Dimension Inx, despite having many other options on the table. It’s been risky, but I am so glad I did it!

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

Adam: I am actually passionate about 3D-Printing outside of my work/3D-Printing 😊 I pursue art and cooking. I have an art company based on my 3D-printed pieces/technology. Art, like cooking, is not only a low-pressure way to explore new methods and approaches without care, but it is an excellent means of communicating to those outside of the hard technology fields. My art has been exhibited at several major international events and there are two museum events upcoming in May 2019 where some of my pieces (based around advanced biomaterial 3D-printing) will be exhibited. 

Jenny: What is your favorite quote? Why?

Adam: Two Quotes:

1. “Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine” ― Nikola Tesla

Because I am in a very difficult, emerging, potentially transformative field. There are so many obstacles to overcome and work to complete today, but I really do it for what that future might bring, where medical treatment and technology is transformed. 

2. “If I had an hour to solve a problem I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions.” ― Albert Einstein

Because, as an engineer, with so many tools, materials, and skillsets at my fingertips, but so limited time, it is important to understand exactly what should be the focus of my efforts. There it a lot of good work and research that looks for a problem, but there are so many problems that aren’t the focused subject of work and research. 

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

Adam: It means more motivation. The field has been around a long time now but is finally beginning to pick up steam because of collective organizations, such as 3DHEALS, making the broader push.

Related Links:

Bone Grafts: Inducing Bone Regeneration with 3D Printed Porosity

3DHEALS2020 Session 17. Biofabrication Ecosystem

Interview with Adam Clark, Tangible Solutions

Bio Fabrication Techniques for Bone and Cartilage Tissue Regeneration

Interview: Professor Adam Feinberg, Carnegie Mellon University, CTO and co-founder FluidForm

The post Interview: Adam Jakus, Chief Technology of DimensionInx appeared first on 3DHeals.

Dr. Ben Holmes is an entrepreneur, medtech executive, inventor, and scientist. He is the CEO and co-founder of Nanochon, which is commercializing a 3D printed cartilage implant for regenerating lost or damaged cartilage in joints. His academic background is in 3D printing and biomaterials for tissue engineering and regeneration. Ben is also a 3DHEALS community manager in the Washington, D.C. area. Ben will be speaking on the upcoming NAMIC/3DHEALS Startup Showcase.

3DHEALS has recently invested in Nanochon.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 💡Healthcare 3D Printing💡 (@3dheals)

Jenny: Ben, please tell us a little about you.

Ben: I am an experienced medtech executive, developer, and entrepreneur. I have been a researcher and now a product developer for 3D printed medical devices since 2011. I have successfully led early-stage medical device companies since 2016.

Jenny: Where are you from and what are you working on? 

Ben: I grew up in Northern Virginia. I came to DC in 2009 to study at George Washington University, in Grace Zhang’s tissue engineering lab. When I founded my company in 2016, we stayed in DC to continue a research relationship with GWU and to pursue a collaboration with Children’s National Medical Center. My company Nanochon is developing a 3D printed porous and flexible implant for regenerating damaged cartilage in the knee. We were successful with securing essential development grants, and an SBIR from the National Science Foundation, and we just closed a $2M seed round to continue commercializing the technology.

Jenny: What made you decide to become a 3DHEALS community manager?

Ben: I have always had a passion for 3D printing, and all the unique benefits it can bring to healthcare. I first came into contact with 3DHeals at a conference in Washington DC and was impressed by the experience and passion displayed by the members I met. That motivated me to get more involved and made me want to share this important community with others.

Jenny: What do you think of innovations in healthcare 3D printing or bioprinting? What do you hope to see in the next five years? 10 years?

Ben: I think great progress has been made in the last 10 years, and there have been impressive examples of highly controlled, cell-supporting small-scale structures. I think improving speed and accuracy so these delicate small-scale structures can be produced throughout a large-scale implantable tissue is key. My hope is that new/cutting edge printing technology will be used to print new, biocompatible materials, at greater speeds and volumes.

Jenny: If you have done 3D printing before, what have you made/designed? 

Ben: My company is developing an implant for cartilage repair. It is a disk-like structure roughly the size of a coin, with the thickness of cartilage, designed to re-surface areas of a joint that has lost or damaged cartilage tissue. In my past research, I also used 3D printing to design and print structures for bone and micro-vascular tissues.

Jenny: Most of our community managers are entrepreneurial and adventurous, what risks/adventures have you taken that you’d like to share with us?

Ben: Starting my company! I think especially in the “long-term” implantable device space, there is a lot of clinical and financial risk, and it takes a lot of work before such companies are truly “fundable.” We had great early success with grants and SBIR funding and just closed our first institutional round. My hope is that we can continue to grow and get the funds we need, I think our technology really shines in this space, where there have been many failed attempts,and there is a clear need clinically, I will continue to share my vision with those who have the resources to help us get to the next level.

Jenny: Who would you like to find and include in the 3DHEALS community you are building?

Ben: Other young researchers and entrepreneurs like I was, who need talented and resourceful people to take an interest in them, guide them, and help them succeed. On the other side, I have loved to see the involvement of key industry players in medical 3D printing, and want to see 3D HEALS continue to be a place that can bring entrepreneurs and industry together.

Jenny: What would you like to accomplish with this new 3DHEALS community in the future?

Ben: I think building pipelines for 3D printed technology to get from the lab to the clinic is a must. I would love to see 3D HEALS become the premier networking event for doctors, researchers, investors, and strategic partners in the 3D printing space.

Jenny: What do you think about the innovation environment (for health tech or for general technology) in your city?

Ben: I have been impressed over the last 3-4 years. DC was lacking, when it comes to investors and financing interested in medical devices. But lately, there has been greatly renewed interest, supported largely by talented researchers and clinicains founding companies and staying in the area. I believe there is now a base of high value companies that is attracting investment and resources.

Jenny: What are you most proud of about your city?

Ben: I think DC has made great strides in the last 15-20 years to really become a vibrant and livable community.

Jenny: What are you most proud of about the innovation community in your city?

Ben: DC continues to be a cradle for generating great ideas, and the infrastructure to take them further is growing, supported by investors, industry, and world-class universities.

Jenny: What do you think are the top priorities in healthcare innovations for your city/community?

Ben: Improving patient outcomes through better clinical management and treatment efficiency. DC has in fact been a testbed for companies large and small focused on community health initiatives.

Jenny: What do you hope to accomplish through your role as the 3DHEALS community manager?

Ben: I want to do what I can to help  DC continue to grow and evolve its innovation ecosystem.

Jenny: What do you do for fun?

Ben: Before the pandemic, I enjoyed going to shows and concerts. But I have become sort of outdoorsy, enjoying hiking, camping, and other outdoor adventures. I also love to cook and travel.

Jenny: Anything else?

Ben: I can’t wait to help the DC 3DHEALS community thrive!

Related Articles:

Interview with Prof. Huang Dejian: CEO, Kosmodehealth

Interview with Dr. Wei Jiang GOH: CEO, Crafthealth

Interview with Amrish Nair: CEO, BIORITHM

Interview: Adam Jakus, Chief Technology of DimensionInx

Bone Grafts: Inducing Bone Regeneration with 3D Printed Porosity

3DHEALS2020 Session 17. Biofabrication Ecosystem

Interview with Adam Clark, Tangible Solutions

Bio Fabrication Techniques for Bone and Cartilage Tissue Regeneration

Interview: Professor Adam Feinberg, Carnegie Mellon University, CTO and co-founder FluidForm

The post Interview: Dr. Benjamin Holmes, CEO Nanochon appeared first on 3DHeals.

Albert S. Woo, FACS is a board-certified plastic and reconstructive surgeon who specializes in the treatment of cleft and craniofacial anomalies. This work has led to a particular interest in three-dimensional imaging and printing of complex surgical models. He is an Associate Professor of Surgery, Pediatrics, and Neurosurgery at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University and serves as the Chief of the Division of Pediatric Plastic Surgery, Director of the Cleft and Craniofacial Center at Hasbro Children’s Hospital, and Director of the new Lifespan 3D Printing Laboratory.

Besides medical 3D printing, Dr. Woo’s clinical interests include the surgical treatment of patients with craniosynostosis, complex and syndromic craniofacial abnormalities, and cleft deformities. In particular, he is internationally recognized as an expert in cleft palate repair, after having developed a new surgical technique for this procedure. He is also nationally recognized for his expertise in Endoscopic Craniosynostosis Surgery, with numerous papers and national presentations on the subject. With more than 60 peer-reviewed publications, numerous chapters and a book, Dr. Woo remains committed not only to clinical excellence but also to advancing research in the treatment of craniofacial anomalies.

Dr. Woo currently is a member of numerous societies including the American College of Surgeons, the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons, the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, the American Association of Plastic Surgeons, and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. He is the recipient of numerous awards, including recognition by Best Doctors in America since 2011 and Castle Connolly’s Top Doctors. Dr. Woo recently co-founded a startup, Implant3D.

Dr. Woo will be presenting at our upcoming 3D Printing in Hospital webinar

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

Albert: It was probably during my craniofacial surgery fellowship over a decade ago that I first encountered a 3D printed surgical model. I was amazed at the incredible detail that was present in these models and the fact that they could be sterilized for use in the operating room. Plastic surgeons have been using these types of models for decades now but the incredible power of this technology never ceases to fascinate me.
However, the biggest impact to me came when I obtained our first grant to purchase a professional-grade 3D printer in 2015. This dramatically affected my practice. For the first time, I had control over the 3D models that we printed without going through the multiple steps of ordering it through a vendor. We were able to make models quickly, some printed overnight for surgery the next day, making this technology available even for urgent surgical cases.

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

Albert: As with most things in life, it was pure luck. As I began my career, I inherited a 3D imaging lab started by Dr. Jeffrey Marsh, who is credited (along with Dr. Michael Vannier) with having developed the technology for 3D modeling of 2D CT scans. As we pursued this work, I happened to meet a bioengineer who was interested in 3D printing. Honestly, I hadn’t thought much about printing until then but it was a natural leap in our research. We decided to submit a joint grant proposal for a professional-grade 3D printer, which got me started on the exciting path of looking at the use of 3D printing in medical care.

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

Albert: Really, it is a number of people. I cannot laud the work of Dr. Jeffrey Marsh enough, who was a pioneer in the field of 3D craniofacial imaging. I would like the opportunity to carry on some of his work to stand on the shoulders of giants. Beyond this, I have to give credit to my friend and colleague in pediatric cardiology, Dr. Shafkat Anwar. Until we had met, I largely focused on pursuing my own clinical interests in 3D printing and craniofacial imaging. However, he helped to really widen my horizons, pushing me out of my silo to start really examining what 3D printing can do in the field of medicine overall.

Jenny: What motivates you the most for your work?

Albert: This answer is easy. I love what I do and I have fun doing it. It’s even made more special when you realize that the work being performed has direct implications for patient care. Not only is some of the modeling that we do is “cool,” but it has s real impact on people’s lives. What can be better?

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

Albert: One of the greatest obstacles is simply obtaining the support to do the work that we do in 3D printing. Printers, materials, software, lab space, employees, time, and training all require funding and support. Unfortunately, the value of this technology isn’t always readily apparent to the folks who focus on the financial statements. To help, it has been critical to obtaining buy-in from other clinicians who have benefited from our 3D models. It has also been useful to sit down with administrators to demonstrate the direct impact that our work has on the care of patients in the hospital.

Jenny: What do you think is (are) the biggest challenge(s) in 3D Printing? What do you think the potential solution(s) is (are)?

Albert: 3D printing in medicine is still a fairly nascent industry and it seems like we are constantly pushing the boundaries of what our software or machines are capable of doing. One of the most notable issues is the disconnect between software and hardware. While CAD-CAM technologies are readily available in manufacturing, the medical domain seems to have far fewer options for high-level modeling of DICOM data, particularly if you are utilizing multiple colors and texture maps. I’m sure that these will come with time but there is still a long way to go before medical 3D printing is truly “plug and play.”
Jenny: If you are granted three wishes by a higher being, what would they be?  
Albert: If I could only add another few hours each day and extra days to the week, my life would be perfect! Beyond this, I would love to know everything about 3D modeling and be able to easily impart this knowledge to the world. I think venues like 3DHeals are an excellent avenue to begin an open dialogue so that we can all learn from each other, sharing ideas and techniques, thereby advancing the field of 3D printing in medicine as a whole.
Jenny: What advice would you give to a smart driven college student in the “real world”? What bad advice you heard should they ignore?
Albert: Learn everything you can and don’t limit your fund of knowledge. Explore your creative and artistic sides at the same time that you look into science and technology. I see 3D printing as a canvas to draw upon. The masters will not only have the fundamental skills to use the printer but also the imagination to draw out the best from the technology. Most importantly, don’t get disappointed with failure, and don’t give up.

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?

Albert: Collaborate and open your minds. And leave your egos at the door.

Jenny: What were/was the best/worst investment you made in 3D printing?

Albert: I had to learn that I couldn’t do all of this on my own. So really the best thing I did was to hire our 3D coordinator to manage the specifics of the program. As a corollary, the worst thing was to try to do it all myself. This simply led to confusion, delays, and aggravation.

Jenny: What was/is the biggest risk you took in your career?

Albert: I had a great practice at Washington University in St. Louis with a burgeoning 3D program that was just taking off. It was difficult to decide to move to my alma mater, Brown University/Rhode Island Hospital, and start all over again — building a new program from scratch. But it was the right thing to do and I have never regretted that decision.

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

Albert: Family comes first. So I do my best to spend as much time with the family as possible.

Jenny: What is your favorite quote? Why?

Albert: “Chance favors the prepared mind.” – Louis Pasteur
Insight and game-changing developments just don’t happen. They are the result of preparation, thought, and previous effort. Even when random opportunities present themselves, some will be better prepared to take advantage of fortuitous events.

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

Albert: 3D printing (and additive manufacturing as a whole) has incredible potential to change the world. We would love to use this new technology to improve healthcare overall.

Related Articles:

Challenges Facing 3D Printing in Reconstructive Surgeries

Webinar Recording: Can 3D Printing Save Us From COVID19 Crisis?

3DHEALS Boston 2018: From Cleft Palate to Bioprinted Lungs, Reality, Dreams, and Ambition

Interview with Roger Kuan, Intellectual Property Concern for Healthcare 3D Printing

Interview with Shannon Walters, Stanford 3D Lab (Video)

The post Interview: Dr. Albert Woo, Brown University appeared first on 3DHeals.

In this “From Academia” blog, we focus on a key ingredient for successful bioprinting, the bioinks. The first article is a recently published review that will lay the foundation of various bioprinting methods and focus on the natural, synthetic, or hybrid materials used as bioinks. This article also addresses the bioprinting technique’s challenges, limitations, and future directions. The second article explores how bioprinting and organoid technology can be merged to generate centimetre-scale tissues that have self-organized features, including lumens, branched vasculatures, and tubular intestinal epithelia with in vivo-like crypts and villus domains. This method could potentially be used to produce larger functional tissue with more geometry and cellular control. The third article introduces a new hydrogel bioink composed of partially digested, porcine cardiac decellularized extracellular matrix (cdECM), Laponite-XLG nanoclay, and poly(ethylene glycol)-diacrylate (PEG-DA). Here, the researchers show that 3D printed constructs with this new bioink demonstrate shape fidelity, adaptability to different printing conditions, and high cell viability following extrusion and photo-polymerization, highlighting the potential for applications in modelling both healthy and fibrotic cardiac tissue. 

“From Academia” features recent, relevant, close to commercialization academic publications. Subjects include but not limited to healthcare 3D printing, 3D bioprinting, and related emerging technologies.

Email: Rance Tino (info@3dheals.com) if you want to share relevant academic publications with us.

Natural and Synthetic Bioinks for 3D Bioprinting

Authored by Dr. Roghayeh Khoeini  Dr. Hamed Nosrati  Dr. Abolfazl Akbarzadeh  Dr. Aziz Eftekhari  Dr. Taras Kavetskyy  Prof. Rovshan Khalilov  Dr. Elham Ahmadian  Dr. Aygun Nasibova  Dr. Pallab Datta  Dr. Leila Roshangar  Dr. Dante C. Deluca  Dr. Soodabeh Davaran  Prof. Magali Cucchiarini  Prof. Ibrahim T. Ozbolat. Advanced Nanobiomed Research. March 30 2021

Recapitulating macro-scale tissue self-organization through organoid bioprinting

Authored by Jonathan A. Brassard, Mike Nikolaev, Tania Hübscher, Moritz Hofer & Matthias P. Lutolf. Nature Materials, September 21 2020

3D bioprinting of mechanically tuned bioinks derived from cardiac decellularized extracellular matrix

Authored by Yu Jung Shin, Ryan T. Shafranek, Jonathan H. Tsui, Jelisha Walcott, Alshakim Nelson, Deok-Ho Kim. Acta Biomaterialia. January 1 2021

Related Articles:

From Academia: Tweaking Bioinks Palette, One-Drop 3D Printing

From Academia: Nanoclay Bioink, Machine Learning, Hydrogel Design Strategies for 3D Bioprinting

3D Bioprinting: The Yellow Brick Road of (Part 1)

From Academia: Tweaking Bioinks Palette, One-Drop 3D Printing

The post From Academia: Bioprinting of Synthetic and Natural Bioinks appeared first on 3DHeals.

In this issue of “From Academia“, we include four recent research publications related to “seeing”, including articles focusing on creating smart contact lenses, cornea, glass optics, and microscope leveraging 3D printing technologies. In the first article, researchers presented a way to develop hydrogel-based contact lenses that can have biosensing capabilities, including sensing eye blinking (peristaltic pressure), PH, and Na+ level, adding another tool to the future wearable market. In the second article, researchers demonstrated how additive manufacturing of gradient index (GRIN) silica-titania glass via direct ink writing method could potentially create a variety of conventional and unconventional optical functions in a flat glass component with no surface curvature. In the third article, the researchers described a way to create a 3D corneal stroma using an orthogonally oriented pure electro-compacted collagen (EC). The researchers believe this technique could potentially be used to create a future full-thickness corneal replacement. In the final article, the authors presented UC2 (You. See. Too.), a low-cost, 3D-printed, open-source, modular microscopy toolbox. The authors demonstrate its versatility by realizing a complete microscope development cycle from concept to experimental phase and developing an open standard in optics to facilitate interfacing with various complementary platforms. 

“From Academia” features recent, relevant, close to commercialization academic publications. Subjects include but not limited to healthcare 3D printing, 3D bioprinting, and related emerging technologies.

Email: Rance Tino (info@3dheals.com) if you want to share relevant academic publications with us.

Microengineered poly(HEMA) hydrogels for wearable contact lens biosensing

Authored by Yihang Chen, Shiming Zhang, Qingyu Cui, Jiahua Ni, Xiaochen Wang, Xuanbing Cheng, Halima Alem, Peyton Tebon, Chun Xu, Changliang Guo,  Rohollah Nasiri, Rosalia Moreddu, Ali K. Yetisen, Samad Ahadian, Nureddin Ashammakhi, Sam Emaminejad, Vadim Jucaud,   Mehmet R. Dokmeci  and  Ali Khademhosseini. Lab on a Chip. 13 October 2020

3D printed gradient index glass optics

Authored by Rebecca Dylla-Spears, Timothy D. Yee, Koroush Sasan, Du T. Nguyen, Nikola A. Dudukovic, Jason M. Ortega, Michael A. Johnson, Oscar D. Herrera, Frederick J. Ryerson and Lana L. Wong, Science Advances. 18 November 2020 

Biomimetic corneal stroma using electro-compacted collagen

Authored by Zhi Chen, Xiao Liu, Jingjing You, Yihui Song, Eva Tomaskovic-Crook, Gerard Sutton, Jeremy M.Crook, Gordon G.Wallace. Acta Biomaterialia, 1 September 2020 

A versatile and customizable low-cost 3D-printed open standard for microscopic imaging

Authored by Benedict Diederich, René Lachmann, Swen Carlstedt, Barbora Marsikova, Haoran Wang, Xavier Uwurukundo, Alexander S. Mosig & Rainer Heintzmann. Nature Communications. 25 November 2020

Related Articles:

From Academia: Bioprinted Cancer Models, Microprinted Imaging Probe, 3DTech for Congenital Heart Disease

From Academia: 3D Printed Lens, Silk as Biomaterial, Aspiration-assisted freeform bioprinting

From Academia: 3D Bioprined Dendritic Vascular Networks, Cornea, Alternative Drug Delivery

Product Liability : Biocompatible Materials in 3D Printed Products

The post From Academia: 3D Printing Contact Lenses, Optics, and Visualization appeared first on 3DHeals.

In this issue of “From Academia”, we include three recent publications introducing innovative ways to deliver drugs. In the first article, the researchers demonstrated 3DMNMEMS, a novel device that combines 3D printing, microneedles (MNs), and Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS). This device allows for versatile and controllable transdermal drug delivery, for example, the delivery of insulin. In the second article, the authors presented a one-step fabrication process of a microfluidic chip for drug dissolution assays based on 3D printing technology. The authors suggest that this method could be a reliable tool for drug release assays during the early research stages. The final publication is a review article focusing on past publications discussing the current applications of 3D-printed porous tantalum (3D-P-p-Ta), a novel drug delivery strategy, in drug delivery systems to repair hard tissue defects, as well as the limitations of existing data and potential future research directions.

“From Academia” features recent, relevant, close to commercialization academic publications. Subjects include but not limited to healthcare 3D printing, 3D bioprinting, and related emerging technologies.

Email: Rance Tino (info@3dheals.com) if you want to share relevant academic publications with us.

A novel 3D printed hollow microneedle microelectromechanical system for controlled, personalized transdermal drug delivery

Authored by Sophia N. Economidou, Jasim Uddin, Manual J. Marques, Dennis Douroumis, Wan Ting Sow, Huaqiong Li, Andrew Reid, James F.C. Windmill, Adrian Podoleanu. Additive Manufacturing. February 2021

3D Printed Microfluidic Devices for Drug Release Assays

Authored by Benzion Amoyav, Yoal Goldstein, Eliana Steinberg, Ofra Benny. MDPI Pharmaceutics. 19 December 2020

3D-printed porous tantalum: recent application in various drug delivery systems to repair hard tissue defects

Authored by Long Hua,Ting Lei,Hu Qian,Yu Zhang,Yihe Hu &Pengfei Lei. Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery. November 2020

Related Articles:

3D Printed Drug Delivery

3D Printed Drug Delivering Medical Devices

3D Printing Pharmaceuticals and Drug Delivery Devices

3D Printing In Orthopedics: Implants, Drug Delivery, Bone Regeneration

3D Bioprinting and Biologics: A Look at Patent and FDA Market Exclusivity Strategies

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.

Other similar articles

The post 3D Printing of Microneedles for Drug Delivery, Microfluidics, Porous Tantalum appeared first on 3DHeals.

In this issue of “From Academia”, we include three recent publications focusing on medical 3D printing for surgical planning, either using 3D printed anatomical models or surgical guides. The first is a review article focusing on cost/benefit analysis of using 3D printing in orthopedic and maxillofacial surgery, primarily in terms of operating room time saved. This is very relevant to our guide focusing on 3D printing in hospitals. The second study focuses on a case study using an innovative patient-specific instrument guide (PSIG) for the safe removal of a skull bone tumor. The final article introduces a 2-in-1 patient-specific 3D printed laminectomy surgical guide with integrated pedial screw drill guides.

“From Academia” features recent, relevant, close to commercialization academic publications. Subjects include but not limited to healthcare 3D printing, 3D bioprinting, and related emerging technologies.

Email: Rance Tino (tino.rance@gmail.com) if you want to share relevant academic publications with us.

Medical 3D Printing Cost-Savings in Orthopedic and Maxillofacial Surgery: Cost Analysis of Operating Room Time Saved with 3D Printed Anatomic Models and Surgical Guides

Authored by David H. Ballard, Patrick Mills, Richard Duszak Jr., Jeffery A. Weisman, Frank J. Rybicki, Pamela K. Woodward. Academic Radiology. August 2020

Printing a patient-specific instrument guide for skull osteoma management

Authored by Tien-Hsiang Wang, Li-Ying Huang, Yu-Cheng Hung, Te-Han Wang, Wen-Chan, Fang-Yau Chiu, Shyh-Jen Wang, Wei-Ming Chen. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, October 2020

The Development of Novel 2-in-1 Patient-Specific, 3D-Printed Laminectomy Guides with Integrated Pedicle Screw Drill Guides

Authored by Andrew Kanawati, Renan Jose Rodrigues Fernandes, Aaron Gee, Jennifer Urquhart, Fawaz Siddiqi, Kevin Gurr, Christopher S. Baley, Parham Rasoulinejad. World Neurosurgery. February 1 2021

Related Articles:

3D Bioprinting for Bone Regeneration

From Academia: 3D Printing for Neurosurgery Training, Vat Photopolymerization, soft robotic microsystem

From Academia: In Vivo & Robotic-assisted Minimally Invasive Bioprinting, 3DP for Liver Surgery

Smart Spine Surgery- From Planning to 3D Printed Templates

The Past and Present of 3D Printing in Maxillofacial Surgery

Other Expert Corner Blogs

Other From Academia Blogs

The post Medical 3D Printing for Anatomical Models and Surgical Guides appeared first on 3DHeals.

In this week’s issue of “From Academia”, we share three recent publications focusing on how to leverage 3D printing to improve drug delivery. The first article described a bilayer FDM 3D printed tablet that can release TB medication at two different PH, thereby potentially optimize drug potency and avoid drug interactions. The second publication describes a dual extrusion 3D printing process that can leverage different material compositions and geometries to create different drug release profiles. In the final article, researchers described a multifunctional bone graft as a drug delivery vehicle by incorporating the three primary soy isoflavones: genistein, daidzein, and glycitein onto a 3D printed (3DP) tricalcium phosphate (TCP) scaffold with designed pores, endowing them with in vitro chemopreventive, bone-cell proliferating, and immune-modulatory potential.

“From Academia” features recent, relevant, close to commercialization academic publications. Subjects include but not limited to healthcare 3D printing, 3D bioprinting, and related emerging technologies.

Email: Rance Tino (tino.rance@gmail.com) if you want to share relevant academic publications with us.

3D printed bilayer tablet with dual controlled drug release for tuberculosis treatment

Authored by Atabak Ghanizadeh Tabriz, Uttom Nandi, Andrew P. Hurt, Ho-Wah Hui, Shyam Karki, Yuchuan Gong, Sumit Kumar, Dennis Douroumis. International Journal of Pharmaceutics. January 2020

Speed it up, slow it down: An issue of bicalutamide release from 3D printed tablets

Authored by Witold Jamroz, Mateusz Kurek, Joanna Szafraniec-Szczesny, Anna Czech, Karolina Gawlak, Justyna Knapik-Kowalczuk, Bartosz Leszczynski, Andrzej Wrobel, Marian Paluch, Renata Jachowicz. Euoprean Journal of Pharmaceutrical Science. February 2020 

Controlled release of soy isoflavones from multifunctional 3D printed bone tissue engineering scaffolds

Authored by Naboneeta Sarkar, Susmita Bose. Acta Biomaterialia. September 2020

Related Articles:

Optimizing Bioprinting Hydrogel using Machine Learning, Modified or Decellularized ECM

3D Bioprinting Skin Applications, Wound Healing

Meeting Cell Demands for Tissue Engineering and Bioprinting

Medical Simulation Using Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, 3D Printing

3D Printing in Veterinary Practice

3D Printing In Orthopedics: Implants, Drug Delivery, Bone Regeneration

3D Printing Pharmaceuticals and Drug Delivery Devices

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.

Other similar articles

The post From Academia: 3D Printed Drug Delivery appeared first on 3DHeals.

Bioprinting organs cannot succeed without the right biomaterials. In this issue of “From Academia”, three articles focus on different ways to optimize bioprinting hydrogel. The first article focuses on using machine learning with various parameters to optimize FRESH technique with alginate. This is one of few articles exploring the future scaling of automated biofabrication and tissue engineering. The second study explores an application using 3D bioprinting optimized methacrylated HA (MeHA), a modified major component of extracellular matrix (ECM) to create in vitro testbeds for studying neural repair. The final article goes a step further by using 3D printed esophageal derived decellularized ECM hydrogel-loaded stent to treat radiation esophagitis in the animal models.

“From Academia” features recent, relevant, close to commercialization academic publications. Subjects include but not limited to healthcare 3D printing, 3D bioprinting, and related emerging technologies.

Email: Rance Tino (tino.rance@gmail.com) if you want to share relevant academic publications with us.

Hierarchical Machine Learning for High-Fidelity 3D Printed Biopolymers

Authored by Jennifer M. Bone, Christopher M. Childs, Aditya Menon, Barnabás Póczos, Adam W. Feinberg, Philip R. LeDuc, and Newell R. Washburn. ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering. 20 November 2020

Three-Dimensional Bioprinted Hyaluronic Acid Hydrogel Test Beds for Assessing Neural Cell Responses to Competitive Growth Stimuli

Authored by Tran B. Ngo, Benjamin S. Spearman, Nora Hlavac, and Christine E. Schmidt, ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering. 1 December 2020 

Therapeutic effect of decellularized extracellular matrix-based hydrogel for radiation esophagitis by 3D printed esophageal stent

Authored by Dong-HeonHaab, Suhun Chaea, Jae Yeon Lee, Jae Yun Kim, Jung bin Yoon, Tugce Sen, Sung-Woo Lee, Hak Jae Kim, Jae Ho Cho, Dong-Woo Cho. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. 20 January 2021

Related Articles:

3D Bioprinting Personalized Brain Tissues

3D Bioprinting Skin Applications, Wound Healing

Meeting Cell Demands for Tissue Engineering and Bioprinting

Medical Simulation Using Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, 3D Printing

3D Printing in Veterinary Practice

3D Printing In Orthopedics: Implants, Drug Delivery, Bone Regeneration

3D Printing Pharmaceuticals and Drug Delivery Devices

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.

Other similar articles

The post From Academia: Optimizing Bioprinting Hydrogel using Machine Learning, Modified or Decellularized ECM appeared first on 3DHeals.