Part of the magic of 3D printing is its democratization of manufacturing. Ideas can be prototyped rapidly and inexpensively, lowering the threshold for testing out new concepts and ideas. This puts the power of innovation squarely in the hands of front line staff who have the best understanding of the tough problems in healthcare that need to be solved. This explains the shift in focus of 3D printing technology from so-called “zebra” diseases (those which are rarely seen in healthcare) to common diseases that affect millions, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and musculoskeletal disorders.
Figures from Hosny et al., JCCT 2018.
Concept drawing and actual 3D-printed sizing device,
being opened in a patient-specific 3D-printed model
of the patient’s diseased aortic valve.
However, 3D printing isn’t as simple as dreaming up an idea and pushing a button that says print (at least not yet). Born from engineering, it requires an understanding of theoretical design principles, computer-aided design software, materials chemistry, quality assurance testing, and more. These skills are not typically taught in healthcare curricula, leaving the people with ideas and firsthand knowledge of healthcare problems often at a loss for how to translate those ideas from concept to actual product. In these early days, engineers who can speak the language of medicine and healthcare providers who can successfully communicate with engineers will play a dominant role in the medical 3D printing space. Hospitals and those in the healthcare industry who can encourage this cross-pollination of ideas and experience will see rewards in terms of new products and services that benefit patients.
Recent work by Ahmed Hosny and colleagues, published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography demonstrates this concept of cross-pollination nicely. Hosny, originally an architect by training, teamed up with two materials scientists and biologists, two radiologists, an interventional cardiologist, and a cardiac anesthesiologist to solve the tough problem of choosing the correct size heart valve replacement in cases where doctors never actually physically see the patient’s heart. This veritable Noah’s Ark of innovators each saw the problem from a different angle, and that blending of perspectives resulted in something new.
