scholarly journals Comparing cost and print time estimates for six commercially-available 3D printers obtained through slicing software for clinically relevant anatomical models

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua V. Chen ◽  
Alan B. C. Dang ◽  
Alexis Dang
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effective ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Anatomical Models ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Layer Height ◽  
Orthopaedic Care ◽  
Horizontal Orientation ◽  
3D Printers ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Digital Anatomy

Abstract Background 3D printed patient-specific anatomical models have been applied clinically to orthopaedic care for surgical planning and patient education. The estimated cost and print time per model for 3D printers have not yet been compared with clinically representative models across multiple printing technologies. This study investigates six commercially-available 3D printers: Prusa i3 MK3S, Formlabs Form 2, Formlabs Form 3, LulzBot TAZ 6, Stratasys F370, and Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy. Methods Seven representative orthopaedic standard tessellation models derived from CT scans were imported into the respective slicing software for each 3D printer. For each printer and corresponding print setting, the slicing software provides a print time and material use estimate. Material quantity was used to calculate estimated model cost. Print settings investigated were infill percentage, layer height, and model orientation on the print bed. The slicing software investigated are Cura LulzBot Edition 3.6.20, GrabCAD Print 1.43, PreForm 3.4.6, and PrusaSlicer 2.2.0. Results The effect of changing infill between 15% and 20% on estimated print time and material use was negligible. Orientation of the model has considerable impact on time and cost with worst-case differences being as much as 39.30% added print time and 34.56% added costs. Averaged across all investigated settings, horizontal model orientation on the print bed minimizes estimated print time for all 3D printers, while vertical model orientation minimizes cost with the exception of Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy, in which horizontal orientation also minimized cost. Decreasing layer height for all investigated printers increased estimated print time and decreased estimated cost with the exception of Stratasys F370, in which cost increased. The difference in material cost was two orders of magnitude between the least and most-expensive printers. The difference in build rate (cm3/min) was one order of magnitude between the fastest and slowest printers. Conclusions All investigated 3D printers in this study have the potential for clinical utility. Print time and print cost are dependent on orientation of anatomy and the printers and settings selected. Cost-effective clinical 3D printing of anatomic models should consider an appropriate printer for the complexity of the anatomy and the experience of the printer technicians.

scholarly journals Comparing cost and print time estimates for six commercially-available 3D printers obtained through slicing software for clinically relevant anatomical models

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Vic Chen ◽  
Alan BC Dang ◽  
Alexis Dang
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effective ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Anatomical Models ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Layer Height ◽  
Orthopaedic Care ◽  
Horizontal Orientation ◽  
3D Printers ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Digital Anatomy

Abstract Background3D printed patient-specific anatomical models have been applied clinically to orthopaedic care for surgical planning and patient education. The estimated cost and print time per model for 3D printers have not yet been compared with clinically representative models across multiple printing technologies. This study investigates six commercially-available 3D printers: Prusa i3 MK3S, Formlabs Form 2, Formlabs Form 3, LulzBot TAZ 6, Stratasys F370, and Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy.MethodsSeven representative orthopaedic standard tessellation models derived from CT scans were imported into the respective slicing software for each 3D printer. For each printer and corresponding print setting, the slicing software provides a print time and material use estimate. Material quantity was used to calculate estimated model cost. Print settings investigated were infill percentage, layer height, and model orientation on the print bed. The slicing software investigated are Cura LulzBot Edition 3.6.20, GrabCAD Print 1.43, PreForm 3.4.6, and PrusaSlicer 2.2.0.ResultsThe effect of changing infill between 15% and 20% on estimated print time and material use was negligible. Orientation of the model has considerable impact on time and cost with worst-case differences being as much as 39.30% added print time and 34.56% added costs. Averaged across all investigated settings, horizontal model orientation on the print bed minimizes estimated print time for all 3D printers, while vertical model orientation minimizes cost with the exception of Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy, in which horizontal orientation also minimized cost. Decreasing layer height for all investigated printers increased estimated print time and decreased estimated cost with the exception of Stratasys F370, in which cost increased. The difference in material cost was two orders of magnitude between the least and most-expensive printers. The difference in build rate (cm3/min) was one order of magnitude between the fastest and slowest printers.ConclusionsAll investigated 3D printers in this study have the potential for clinical utility. Print time and print cost are dependent on orientation of anatomy and the printers and settings selected. Cost-effective clinical 3D printing of anatomic models should consider an appropriate printer for the complexity of the anatomy and the experience of the printer technicians.

scholarly journals Comparing cost and print time estimates for six commercially-available 3D printers obtained through slicing software for clinically relevant anatomical models

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Vic Chen ◽  
Alan BC Dang ◽  
Alexis Dang
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effective ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Anatomical Models ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Layer Height ◽  
Orthopaedic Care ◽  
Horizontal Orientation ◽  
3D Printers ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Digital Anatomy

Abstract Background3D printed patient-specific anatomical models have been applied clinically to orthopaedic care for surgical planning and patient education. The estimated cost and print time per model for 3D printers have not yet been compared with clinically representative models across multiple printing technologies. This study investigates six commercially-available 3D printers: Prusa i3 MK3S, Formlabs Form 2, Formlabs Form 3, LulzBot TAZ 6, Stratasys F370, and Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy.MethodsSeven representative orthopaedic standard tessellation models derived from CT scans were imported into the respective slicing software for each 3D printer. For each printer and corresponding print setting, the slicing software provides a print time and material use estimate. Material quantity was used to calculate estimated model cost. Print settings investigated were infill percentage, layer height, and model orientation on the print bed. The slicing software investigated are Cura LulzBot Edition 3.6.20, GrabCAD Print 1.43, PreForm 3.4.6, and PrusaSlicer 2.2.0.ResultsThe effect of changing infill between 15% and 20% on estimated print time and material use was negligible. Orientation of the model has considerable impact on time and cost with worst-case differences being as much as 39.30% added print time and 34.56% added costs. Averaged across all investigated settings, horizontal model orientation on the print bed minimizes estimated print time for all 3D printers, while vertical model orientation minimizes cost with the exception of Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy, in which horizontal orientation also minimized cost. Decreasing layer height for all investigated printers increased estimated print time and decreased estimated cost with the exception of Stratasys F370, in which cost increased. The difference in material cost was two orders of magnitude between the least and most-expensive printers. The difference in build rate (cm3/min) was one order of magnitude between the fastest and slowest printers.ConclusionsAll investigated 3D printers in this study have the potential for clinical utility. Print time and print cost are dependent on orientation of anatomy and the printers and settings selected. Cost-effective clinical 3D printing of anatomic models should consider an appropriate printer for the complexity of the anatomy and the experience of the printer technicians.

scholarly journals Comparing Cost and Print Time Estimates for Six Commercially-Available 3D Printers Obtained Through Slicing Software for Clinically Relevant Anatomical Models

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Vic Chen ◽  
Alan BC Dang ◽  
Alexis Dang
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effective ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
3D Printer ◽  
Anatomical Models ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Layer Height ◽  
Orthopaedic Care ◽  
3D Printers ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Digital Anatomy

Abstract Background3D printed patient-specific anatomical models have been applied clinically to orthopaedic care for surgical planning and patient education. The estimated cost and print time per model for 3D printers have not yet been compared with clinically representative models across multiple printing technologies. This study investigates six commercially available 3D printers: Prusa i3 MK3S, Formlabs Form 2, Formlabs Form 3, LulzBot TAZ 6, Stratasys F370, and Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy.MethodsSeven representative orthopaedic standard tessellation models derived from anonymized CT scans were imported into the respective slicing software for each 3D printer. For each 3D printer and corresponding print setting, the slicing software provides a computed print time and material use estimate. Material quantity was used to calculate estimated model cost. Print settings investigated were infill percentage, layer height, and model orientation on the print bed. The slicing software investigated are Cura LulzBot Edition 3.6.20, GrabCAD Print 1.43, PreForm 3.4.6, and PrusaSlicer 2.2.0.ResultsThe effect of changing infill between 15% and 20% on estimated print time and material use appears to be negligible. Orientation of the model has considerable impact on time and cost with worst-case differences being as much as 39.30% added print time and 34.56% added costs. Averaged across all investigated settings, horizontal model orientation on the print bed minimizes estimated print time for all 3D printers, while vertical model orientation generally minimizes cost with the exception of Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy, in which horizontal model orientation also minimized cost. Decreasing layer height for all investigated 3D printers increased estimated print time and decreased estimated cost with the exception of Stratasys F370, in which cost increased. The difference in material cost was approximately two orders of magnitude between the least and most-expensive printers.ConclusionsAll investigated 3D printers in this study have the potential for clinical utility. Print time and print cost are dependent on orientation of anatomy and the 3D printers and settings selected. Cost-effective clinical 3D printing of anatomic models should consider an appropriate printer for the complexity of the anatomy and the experience of the printer technicians.

scholarly journals Current Practice in Preoperative Virtual and Physical Simulation in Neurosurgery

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisa Mussi ◽  
Federico Mussa ◽  
Chiara Santarelli ◽  
Mirko Scagnet ◽  
Francesca Uccheddu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
3D Printing ◽  
Surgical Planning ◽  
Physical Simulation ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Preoperative Planning ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Anatomical Models ◽  
Standard Clinical Practice

In brain tumor surgery, an appropriate and careful surgical planning process is crucial for surgeons and can determine the success or failure of the surgery. A deep comprehension of spatial relationships between tumor borders and surrounding healthy tissues enables accurate surgical planning that leads to the identification of the optimal and patient-specific surgical strategy. A physical replica of the region of interest is a valuable aid for preoperative planning and simulation, allowing the physician to directly handle the patient’s anatomy and easily study the volumes involved in the surgery. In the literature, different anatomical models, produced with 3D technologies, are reported and several methodologies were proposed. Many of them share the idea that the employment of 3D printing technologies to produce anatomical models can be introduced into standard clinical practice since 3D printing is now considered to be a mature technology. Therefore, the main aim of the paper is to take into account the literature best practices and to describe the current workflow and methodology used to standardize the pre-operative virtual and physical simulation in neurosurgery. The main aim is also to introduce these practices and standards to neurosurgeons and clinical engineers interested in learning and implementing cost-effective in-house preoperative surgical planning processes. To assess the validity of the proposed scheme, four clinical cases of preoperative planning of brain cancer surgery are reported and discussed. Our preliminary results showed that the proposed methodology can be applied effectively in the neurosurgical clinical practice both in terms of affordability and in terms of simulation realism and efficacy.

scholarly journals Combined deep CNN–LSTM network-based multitasking learning architecture for noninvasive continuous blood pressure estimation using difference in ECG-PPG features

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Da Un Jeong ◽  
Ki Moo Lim
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Blood Pressure Measurement ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Peak Time ◽  
Simultaneous Prediction ◽  
Deep Cnn ◽  
Pressure Estimation ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Blood Pressure Estimation ◽  
Continuous Blood Pressure

AbstractThe pulse arrival time (PAT), the difference between the R-peak time of electrocardiogram (ECG) signal and the systolic peak of photoplethysmography (PPG) signal, is an indicator that enables noninvasive and continuous blood pressure estimation. However, it is difficult to accurately measure PAT from ECG and PPG signals because they have inconsistent shapes owing to patient-specific physical characteristics, pathological conditions, and movements. Accordingly, complex preprocessing is required to estimate blood pressure based on PAT. In this paper, as an alternative solution, we propose a noninvasive continuous algorithm using the difference between ECG and PPG as a new feature that can include PAT information. The proposed algorithm is a deep CNN–LSTM-based multitasking machine learning model that outputs simultaneous prediction results of systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressures (DBP). We used a total of 48 patients on the PhysioNet website by splitting them into 38 patients for training and 10 patients for testing. The prediction accuracies of SBP and DBP were 0.0 ± 1.6 mmHg and 0.2 ± 1.3 mmHg, respectively. Even though the proposed model was assessed with only 10 patients, this result was satisfied with three guidelines, which are the BHS, AAMI, and IEEE standards for blood pressure measurement devices.

An evaluation of a shoulder rehabilitation class in a UK hospital following evidence-based modifications

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Emily Kell ◽  
John A. Hammond ◽  
Sophie Andrews ◽  
Christina Germeni ◽  
Helen Hingston ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Shoulder Pain ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Rehabilitation Programme ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Satisfaction Survey ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Patient Satisfaction Survey ◽  
Significant Difference

OBJECTIVES: Shoulder pain is a common musculoskeletal disorder, which carries a high cost to healthcare systems. Exercise is a common conservative management strategy for a range of shoulder conditions and can reduce shoulder pain and improve function. Exercise classes that integrate education and self-management strategies have been shown to be cost-effective, offer psycho-social benefits and promote self-efficacy. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of an 8-week educational and exercise-based shoulder rehabilitation programme following the introduction of evidence-based modifications. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of a shoulder rehabilitation programme at X Trust was conducted, comparing existing anonymised Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) and Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) scores from two cohorts of class participants from 2017-18 and 2018-19 that were previously collected by the physiotherapy team. Data from the two cohorts were analysed separately, and in comparison, to assess class efficacy. Descriptive data were also analysed from a patient satisfaction survey from the 2018-19 cohort. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients completed the 8-week shoulder rehabilitation programme during the period of data collection (2018-2019). The 2018-19 cohort showed significant improvements in SPADI (p 0.001) and PSFS scores (p 0.001). No significant difference was found between the improvements seen in the 2017-18 cohort and the 2018-19 cohort. 96% of the 31 respondents who completed the patient satisfaction survey felt the class helped to achieve their goals. CONCLUSION: A group-based shoulder rehabilitation class, which included loaded exercises and patient education, led to improvements in pain, disability and function for patients with rotator cuff related shoulder pain (RCRSP) in this outpatient setting, but anticipated additional benefits based on evidence were not observed.

How the United Kingdom Controls Pharmaceutical Prices and Spending: Learning From Its Experience

2021 ◽  
pp. 002073142199709
Author(s):  
Marc A. Rodwin
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Market Prices ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Generic Market ◽  
Pharmaceutical Spending ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Government ◽  
Pharmaceutical Prices ◽  
Limit Access

To control costs and improve access, nations can adopt strategies employed in the United Kingdom to control pharmaceutical prices and spending. Current policy evolved from a system created in 1957 that allowed manufacturers to set launch prices, capped manufacturers’ rates of return, and later cut list prices. These policies did not effectively control spending and had limited effects on purchase prices. The United Kingdom currently controls pharmaceutical spending in 4 ways. (a) Since 1999, it has typically paid no more than is cost-effective. (b) Since 2017, for medicines that will have a significant budget impact, National Health Service England seeks discounts from cost-effective prices or seeks to limit access for 2 years to patients with the greatest need. (c) Since 2014, statutes and a voluntary scheme have required branded manufacturers to pay the government rebates to recoup the difference between the global pharmaceutical budget and actual spending. (d) For hospitals, generics and some patented drugs are procured through competitive bidding; community pharmacies are reimbursed through a system that provides an incentive to beat average generic market prices. These policies controlled the growth of spending, with the largest effects following budget controls in 2014. Changes since 2008 have reduced savings, first by paying more than is cost-effective for cancer drugs and then by applying higher cost-effectiveness thresholds for some drugs used to treat cancer and certain other drugs.

scholarly journals Manufacturing and Characterization of Hybrid Bulk Voxelated Biomaterials Printed by Digital Anatomy 3D Printing

Polymers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 123
Author(s):  
Hyeonu Heo ◽  
Yuqi Jin ◽  
David Yang ◽  
Christopher Wier ◽  
Aaron Minard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Precision ◽  
Soft Matter ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Experimental Models ◽  
Effective Density ◽  
Practical Applications ◽  
3D Printers ◽  
Processing Techniques ◽  
Complex Surgical Procedures ◽  
Digital Anatomy

The advent of 3D digital printers has led to the evolution of realistic anatomical organ shaped structures that are being currently used as experimental models for rehearsing and preparing complex surgical procedures by clinicians. However, the actual material properties are still far from being ideal, which necessitates the need to develop new materials and processing techniques for the next generation of 3D printers optimized for clinical applications. Recently, the voxelated soft matter technique has been introduced to provide a much broader range of materials and a profile much more like the actual organ that can be designed and fabricated voxel by voxel with high precision. For the practical applications of 3D voxelated materials, it is crucial to develop the novel high precision material manufacturing and characterization technique to control the mechanical properties that can be difficult using the conventional methods due to the complexity and the size of the combination of materials. Here we propose the non-destructive ultrasound effective density and bulk modulus imaging to evaluate 3D voxelated materials printed by J750 Digital Anatomy 3D Printer of Stratasys. Our method provides the design map of voxelated materials and substantially broadens the applications of 3D digital printing in the clinical research area.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document