3D printing can definitely help to solve some of the problems that we have actually in the medical sector. For example, when a patient needs an organ for a transplant or a new skin tissue to heal an important wound, we have to wait for a donor. Waiting for a donor is a long process, but these patients don’t really have time to waste. That is precisely where the additive manufacturing technology can help them: it can use the patient’s cells to create a functional organ, an organ part or now, even a brand new skin tissue!
This process could really help accident victims and burned patients by providing viable skin grafts. It will be a real time-saving technique, and it will considerably ease the whole process as only one machine will be required. Donors and additional surgeries will not be needed anymore.
3D printing has taken off at lightning speed, with innovations emerging around the world continually—and virtually unregulated. While there may be some serious discussions and expectations regarding ownership and common sense regarding designs, most of the legal angles are still in the embryonic stages. And that brings us to tissue engineering. Jamil Ammar tackles a provocative subject that has the potential to become much more complex over the years, in ‘Defective Computer-Aided Design Software Liability in 3D Bioprinted Human Organ Equivalents.’
The creative aspect of 3D printing is one important part of potential intellectual property rights, but in relation to legalities, there are serious liabilities that could be connected to defects in bioprinting. Ammar leads us through the process of bioprinting, from CAD software design to CAD designs to scanning of organs, and the eventual bioprinting of such complex tissue. While there are still so many challenges to overcome before actual organs are created and implanted in humans, worrying about the legalities may seem like jumping the gun; but Ammar does bring up important issues regarding the ‘what ifs’ surrounding software or a design that could be defective.
3D printing brings unique considerations for medical device engineers. But when used well, FDA’s additive manufacturing guidance can give you a competitive advantage.
In October 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a public workshop to gather feedback from the manufacturing and medical device communities with regards to additive manufacturing. The insights from that workshop eventually led to the FDA guidance on Technical Considerations for Additive Manufactured Medical Devices.
There are many unique and vital questions that medical device engineers need to answer with regards to additive manufacturing. While they are not difficult, it is new work compared to traditional applications. While the 30-page FDA guidance covers a number of important topics such as biocompatibility, software security, and acceptance testing, there are three key areas of risk and where implementation struggles exist that are worth delving deeper into.
3D printing was pioneered way back in 1986 but has recently begun to enter the public consciousness. Over the past ten years, it has blurred the boundaries between science fiction and fact. It is also known as Additive Manufacturing and is used in the automobile industry, aerospace & defence, retail and in the medical healthcare industry, amongst many others. A major component of this is the 3D printed drugs market. 3D printing helps make what was once expensive and inaccessible much more cost-effective. Can this be more apt and necessary anywhere else than in the field of medicine? 3D printing is already used to print artificial bones, to create surgical materials with 3D scans to replace a damaged or missing bone and even to create hearing aid devices. Skull implants have been made for people with head injuries and even titanium heels to replace bone cancer afflicted patients.
3D-Printed Drugs Market Drivers – There are several factors which help the 3D printed drugs market to grow. One key advantage is their instantaneous solubility. 3D printed drugs are produced using powder bed inkjet printing. The elements of the drug are added in a layer by layer approach akin to 3D printing for any other device. This makes the drugs easier to swallow and can be very helpful for patients suffering from dysphagia. 3D printing could also augment the arrival of individualised drugs, or the creation of a combination of drugs. They could be customised for each patient, which would help much more than batch-produced drugs since they would be created specifically taking into account that patient’s medical history. The 3D printed drug market could also make children far less resistant to taking their required medication, since they may be able to choose the shape, colour, design and even taste of the tablet! These are anticipated to be the main drivers of the 3D printed drug market.
3D printing i.e. additive manufacturing involves a layer by layer process to create physical objects out of digital 3D blueprints. It was mainly used for rapid prototyping in the late 1980’s. However, it has now become a next-generation technology which can produce localised, on-demand final products or even spare parts. 3D printing is possible with a range of thermoplastics, metal alloys, ceramics & various foodstuffs. It has seen an application in diverse areas like aerospace, retail, supply chain optimisation, & the medical industry. The 3D printed Hip & Knee Implants Market could dramatically improve both the effectiveness of surgery along with reducing the time taken to recover. It was pioneered by Dr Susannah Clarke and has already been used in hundreds of hip & knee surgeries across the world. It uses CAT scans to create a 3D blueprint of the damaged hip or knee joint to be replaced. Surgeons can then use this to practice the operation on a computer, deciding beforehand where to make incisions or how to realign the bone. The 3D printed hip & knee implant market will help to make replacement surgery much safer & quicker in the long run.
In 2015, market research firm Gartner projected that medical 3D printing would become the pioneering field that would drive additive manufacturing (AM) into the mainstream in two to five years. Four years have passed, so we’ve decided to examine the industry to determine if Gartner’s predictions have come true.
In this article, we’ll explore a handful of medical 3D printing stories from the past year to gain perspective on the level of adoption at which the technology stands.
If you follow 3D printing or medical news at all, you’re likely familiar with the many ways that 3D printing is changing medicine for the better. 3D printed anatomical models are helping surgeons better plan and execute surgeries, while 3D printed implants are being customized to patients for better comfort and longevity, just to name a couple of the major advancements of 3D printing in healthcare. While it may seem like things are happening quickly, however, the solutions don’t just appear and magically change the world; there are hurdles that must be addressed before these solutions can be truly widespread, particularly the dreaded R word – regulation.
In March last year, Materialise became the first company to receive FDA clearance for diagnostic use of its 3D printed anatomical model software. The company then launched an FDA-approved certification program that allows 3D printer manufacturers to have their products tested and validated for use with Materialise’s Mimics inPrint software, which converts medical images into 3D print-ready files.
Manual tests for safe drinking water can be slow and error-prone. A team of academics is trying to change that
Like many people, Alexander Patto was keen to move away from academia after his PhD. He wanted a job that would have a tangible impact on the world, so when an opportunity came up to investigate water testing in the developing world, he jumped at the chance. Together with a team of academics from the University of Cambridge, Patto, a biologist, worked on a simple way of testing bacterial contamination in drinking water.
“The current systems are very slow and complex,” says Patto. To get a robust result “there is a lot of manual sampling”, which can also lead to “a lot of human error”, he says. “What we’re trying to do is make it very, very simple, so that anybody can do a test, regardless of their skillset [and the] resources available, and still get a result that is scientifically robust.”
Recognizing the need for evidence-based recommendations in the sector, these guidelines have been developed over a period of two years, in review of over 500 recent papers published on the topic.
As the abstracts states, “The recommendations provide guidance for approaches and tools in medical 3D printing, from image acquisition, segmentation of the desired anatomy intended for 3D printing, creation of a 3D printable model, and post-processing of 3D printed anatomic models for patient care.”