A recent study about the slow adoption of 3D printing in O&P had the right data but drew the wrong conclusion. Additive manufacturing (AM or 3D printing) in O&P faces a challenge that occurs irrespective of a lack of qualification standards to test structural safety, to which the researchers attribute the problem. The study is worth reading and provides great insight from clinicians, but perhaps the uninspiring title of “Polymer-Based Additive Manufacturing for Orthotic and Prosthetic Devices: Industry Outlook in Canada” should have been “Additive Manufacturing in O&P: Advancing Clinic Workflows on Stable Ground.”
Establishing standards for structural safety, as the researchers suggest, is only part of the problem. Meeting these benchmarks is a starting point for device manufacturers concerned with materials and componentry of the noncustom parts. When 3D printing the client-specific sections (which, by definition, are not standardizable), clinicians still need to field-test the final device regardless of how it was fabricated. Traditional manufacturing methods in the clinic reflect more than just material choice. 3D printing isn’t simply a move to an alternate material. It means adopting a new workflow.
Support authors and subscribe to content
This is premium stuff. Subscribe to read the entire article.
