3 ms·
I cannot think of a single objection you have raised that is to do with 3d printing rather than to do with quality control and process tracking, and quality con
by ktizo 14y ago
I cannot think of a single objection you have raised that is to do with 3d printing rather than to do with quality control and process tracking, and quality control can be made far easier with 3d printing as you can change production as soon as a fault is discovered, so you don't end up with a warehouse full of a million faulty pumps.
And tracking could be achieved by embedding rfids mid-print without a problem.
- HeyLaughingBoy 14y agoThe problem isn't with the 3D printing itself, it's with an end user (the hospital) that doesn't have manufacturing skill and 21CFR knowledge printing off a medical device. It's a nice idea, but the FDA would have a change a huge amount before something like this has a ghost of a chance.
- ktizo 14y agoThere is always the rest of the world, and given they are already using it for bone replacement - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16907104 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16907104 - I don't see what the issue is for pumps. [edit] Also, remember that the end users at this stage are medical geeks of a level of educational qualification that would put the vast amount of people working in software to shame. Some of these people are already making organ printers. I'm sure they can work out medical good practices for in-house manufactured parts and get it approved in most of the world, especially when the full benefits of custom parts as fast as possible becomes apparent.