Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

3-D Printed Pelvis Holding Up After 3 Years

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the now-i-feel-free-to-risk-my-pelvis-without-consequence dept.

Medicine 82

An anonymous reader writes "Here's a neat story out of Britain, with good news about long-term success for the patient involved, and for others who might benefit from similar procedures: three years ago, surgeon Craig Gerrand successfully printed and implanted an artificial pelvis (actually, about half of one) into a patient suffering from a rare form of cancer. Other techniques were ruled out, because the patient would be losing so much bone. So, after careful scanning, additive printing with titanium was used to create the replacement: 'In order to create the 3-D printed pelvis, the surgeons took scans of the man's pelvis to take exact measurements of how much 3-D printed bone needed to be produced and passed it along to Stanmore Implants. The company used the scans to create a titanium 3-D replacement, by fusing layers of titanium together and then coating it with a mineral that would allow the remaining bone cells to attach.' Now, three years after the procedure, the printed pelvis is holding up just fine, and the patient is able to walk with a cane."

cancel ×

82 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not plastic, titanium (3, Informative)

HuguesT (84078) | about 7 months ago | (#46283365)

There is not much difference with respect to physical properties between printed and sintered metal or ceramics. Sintering is a very well established fabrication process combining endurance, flexibility in design and low weight. However, laser-powered, layered construction a.k.a printing allows for even greater flexibility and most importantly one-off fabrication. This is ideally suited to medical applications like this one. However do not expect to be able to do this at home anytime soon.

Re:Not plastic, titanium (4, Insightful)

ubergeek2009 (1475007) | about 7 months ago | (#46283687)

Selective Laser Sintering metal printing although much stronger than typical Fused Deposition Modeling is nowhere near as strong or tough as cast and treated metal components. It has it's place and this is one, but SLS is not great everywhere.

Re:Not plastic, titanium (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46283899)

I'm pretty sure they used Electron beam melting (EBM).

Wiki quote: "Unlike some metal sintering techniques, the parts are fully dense, void-free, and extremely strong."

Wiki quote 2: "The EBM process operates at an elevated temperature, typically between 700 and 1 000 C, producing parts that are virtually free from residual stress, and eliminating the need for heat treatment after the build"

Wiki quote 3: "CE-certified acetabular cups are in series production with EBM since 2007 by two European orthopedic implant manufacturers, Adler Ortho and Lima Corporate."

So nothing new, nothing special, just regular cutting edge.

Re:Not plastic, titanium (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46284897)

Wiki quote: "Unlike some metal sintering techniques, the parts are fully dense, void-free, and extremely strong."

Bah. Sintered metal parts are usually both of those first two things. But the parts have an inferior failure mode (and are more likely to fail) when compared to forged due to the fine grain structure, as opposed to a large interlocking grain structure. Large grains are like legos and small grains are like sand. The large grains interlock, the small grains don't.

Re:Not plastic, titanium (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 7 months ago | (#46285777)

Far from an expert on the subject: is there any reason why something that was built with sintering can't be brought up to near-melting and cooled, to restructure the lattice?

Re: Not plastic, titanium (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46285943)

I wonder if a magnetic field could be used to restructure the lattice? I could see the drawbacks of having a magnetised pelvis, however. "Yes, honey, that really is a wrench in my pants..."

Re: Not plastic, titanium (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46286297)

I've often wondered if you could create a permanent magnet by sintering in a strong magnetic field, but I don't know why you'd get any other results.

Re: Not plastic, titanium (2)

s13g3 (110658) | about 7 months ago | (#46288347)

Titanium is paramagnetic, meaning that while it is attracted/reactive to the presence of external magnetic fields, it retains no magnetization of its own when removed from said external field. In this specific usage case, magnetization of the part would not be of concern any more than it would be for any other titanium prosthesis.

Re: Not plastic, titanium (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#46286887)

This is titanium, not a ferrous metal. It can't be magnetized.

Re: Not plastic, titanium (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46287529)

Way to spoil the joke with facts...

Re:Not plastic, titanium (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46286137)

Forging is what creates the large, interlocking grain structure. No forging, no large interlocking grains. You do get some benefits from sintering, like extreme regularity. Thus, even though the failure mode is less desirable, you can more reasonably engineer out failure because you have a better expectation of how the part will behave. The only problem is that ounce for ounce it won't behave as well as forged+machined, so you're either going to throw more material at the problem, or you're going to have to do more design work and then use more costly manufacturing processes. There are inexpensive sintering processes which are not substantially different in most ways from casting plastic, and even without incremental deposition techniques you get secondary benefits which also reduce cost like being able to crack the caps off conn rods instead of machining them to match. By combining deposition modeling you can also create shapes which you can't reasonably cast, which makes using sintered metal practical; you can throw more metal at the problem where necessary to increase durability and strength lost by using sintered metal as opposed to forged, but you can also reduce metal in places you couldn't with casting, without machining it away.

I am also not an expert on this subject, but I've been doing a lot of reading on it recently.

Re:Not plastic, titanium (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#46286935)

This is all well and good, but don't forget the application here: an artificial pelvis. It doesn't have to be super-strong, it only has to be as strong as something made out of living cells and a bunch of calcium. An artificial titanium pelvis taking up the exact same volume as a natural one should easily be stronger, no matter what kind of process is used to make it. It's not like our human bones have strength-to-weight ratios challenging forged titanium.

Re:Not plastic, titanium (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#46289459)

This is all well and good, but don't forget the application here: an artificial pelvis. It doesn't have to be super-strong, it only has to be as strong as something made out of living cells and a bunch of calcium.

I was answering the question posed, not pondering the ramifications of sintering as it relates to medical prosthetics.

Re:Not plastic, titanium (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 7 months ago | (#46287435)

I had thought quenching (I think is the term) was specifically intended to fix the crystallization. I've seen it done after forgework - before tempering, the metal is uniformly heated to a quite-high temperature and cooled a couple of times. This was explained in a way that made me think it was causing the crystallization to change in a way that made it less brittle. Incidentally you can demagnetize (or magnetize) things the same way, because things "loosen up" when heated like that, and as it cools they fixate.

Re:Not plastic, titanium (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 7 months ago | (#46287445)

er, I should point out it was not cooled quickly, it was let to cool on it's own (the oven was on a timer to cycle it on it's own). Very distinct from heating it up and then plunging it into oil, which I believe is tempering?

Re:Not plastic, titanium (2)

Shimbo (100005) | about 7 months ago | (#46285147)

Whilst I wouldn't be 100% sure based on a press report, it does appear to be laser fused:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/hea... [telegraph.co.uk]

Re:Not plastic, titanium (2)

advocate_one (662832) | about 7 months ago | (#46285025)

good enough to make bicycle frames out of and be lighter than the equivalent tube solution? [gazetteseries.co.uk]

I consider bicycles to be a pretty demanding application stress wise...

Re:Not plastic, titanium (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 7 months ago | (#46285631)

Looks to me like very little of that bike was 3D printed. It looks as thought the only part that was 3D printed was a small part that connects the seat post to the rest of the frame, and even that parts looks like it could be produced using traditional methods.

Re:Not plastic, titanium (1)

matfud (464184) | about 7 months ago | (#46288003)

If you read the article you would know that the entire frame was printed.

Re:Not plastic, titanium (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46285639)

I agree that this is a demanding application stress wise. But, there is no mention in the article about how it holds up when being used in this application.

Re:Not plastic, titanium (1)

smellsofbikes (890263) | about 7 months ago | (#46288077)

This is purely anecdotal, but the two indie framemakers I know who have worked with 3d printed lugs have both said the lugs broke very quickly and they only used them for prototypes, didn't consider them safe to ride. One said he thought he could make a 3d printed lug (this was stainless steel, through shapeways, silver-soldered to Reynolds SS tubing) that would be durable but he guessed it would weigh about 4x as much as equivalent forged columbus lugs.

Re:Not plastic, titanium (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about 6 months ago | (#46289693)

shapeways uses some other weird technique for their metal printing. Their website says that metal grains are deposited with a void filler, and comes out with the structure of wet sand, and then the whole thing is moved to a special oven and heated to fuse it. They say that if what you are making can't be sculpted from wet sand, then they won't be able to print it. Somehow, this seems like a far cry from laser sintering.

Re:Not plastic, titanium (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 7 months ago | (#46286859)

Selective Laser Sintering metal printing although much stronger than typical Fused Deposition Modeling is nowhere near as strong or tough as cast and treated metal components. It has it's place and this is one, but SLS is not great everywhere.

Of course, in this application, it only needs be be as strong as the bone it is replacing.

Sounds like 3D printing... (4, Funny)

SeaFox (739806) | about 7 months ago | (#46283401)

...is getting some hip new applications.
.
.
.
.
Okay, everyone. Put down your pitchforks.

Re:Sounds like 3D printing... (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 7 months ago | (#46285035)

http://instantrimshot.com/clas... [instantrimshot.com]

just remember folks this was NOT done on a MakerBot or similar (But just wait like 10 years)

Re:Sounds like 3D printing... (1)

Procrasti (459372) | about 7 months ago | (#46292693)

> ...is getting some hip new applications.

Shouldn't that be some new hip applications?

And how much would that cost in America? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46283403)

Oh, that's right, you Americans can barely afford these kind of treatments.

Re:And how much would that cost in America? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46284221)

Indeed, but you must remember, it's not the treatment itself that is so costly over here. It's all the tacked on state regulations and overhead associated with healthcare that drives up the cost.

The raw materials cost the same here as they do there. Same thing for the infrastructure, the buildings, the instruments, the mechanical, chemical and other associated support devices and manpower it takes to perform such an operation from end to end, etc. etc. etc. They all cost the same.

Look at it like this, how much is it to puschase a gallon of gas (petrol, I know) in England vs the US? It's roughly double isn't it?

How much does a gallon of gas cost in England vs the US? It's the same, roughly. That is gasoline (petrol) is made from oil, and we both pay for this oil on the open market, and it costs the same to us as it does to you. Ditto for manufacturing costs; it's the same basic process over here as it is there, hence the costs to make a gallon of gas (petrol) from that barrel of oil are, wait for it, the same.

So why do you lot pay 2X the cost to fill your cars up then? That's right, taxes, fees and and other costs coming from state regulation and market interference.

So we're pretty much both of us fooked then aren't we mate?

Re:And how much would that cost in America? (3, Insightful)

ElementOfDestruction (2024308) | about 7 months ago | (#46285221)

I know I'm feeding a troll, but that's a really great argument. Justifying the backbreaking expense of keeping oneself alive against the cost of fuel in two countries. I suppose if you consider the far more efficient vehicles, the vastly reduced amount of driving required, and the great public transport alternatives the argument kind of doesn't seem as brilliant. But I'm just splitting hairs I suppose.

Re:And how much would that cost in America? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46285355)

Great public transport? We clearly can't be talking about either the US or the UK here...

Re:And how much would that cost in America? (1)

Anonymice (1400397) | about 7 months ago | (#46287851)

As someone who has lived & travelled across much of the world, the UK's public transport infrastructure, especially within cities, ranks very highly.

Re:And how much would that cost in America? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 7 months ago | (#46288925)

As someone who has lived & travelled across much of the world, the UK's public transport infrastructure, especially within cities, ranks very highly.

And, given how bad the UK's 'public transport' (i.e. mostly private companies subsidized by the taxpayer) is, that just shows how much it sucks everywhere else.

Re:And how much would that cost in America? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46285585)

English motherfucker, do you speak it?

I justify nothing, it's called an illustrative example.

But now that you bring it up, why would you justify backbreaking state regulations and taxes on healthcare products and services? That to me seems rather crypto-fascist.

Tyranny much fuckwad?

Regulations increase cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46285993)

It's all the tacked on state regulations

That's right. That's why there is zero regulation on medical procedures in Europe

On a more serious note, I think you'll find that your "problem" is that you've injected a series of "parasites" into the supply-chain who "facilitate" but don't actually provide any value.

Re:Regulations increase cost? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46286183)

"That's why there is zero regulation on medical procedures in Europe"

I said no such thing. Is it not clear that the level of regulation and market interference is different in the two societies?

Note as well that I have not said there need to be no level of state involvement, there is a need for limited, controlled and equal regulations on these things, no one is arguing otherwise. But as we all know the $1500 hammers bought my the military and $60 asperins billed by hospitals make no sense whatsoever.

Why is it so difficult to explain these things to you people? This is simple economics and logic.

"On a more serious note"

Again, what the fuck is it with you people? I have been dead on fucking serious about every thing I have said. Fucking up peoples access to healthcare is not a fucking joke and I am not and have not treated it as such. WTF?

"is that you've injected a series of "parasites" into the supply-chain who "facilitate" but don't actually provide any value"

Indeed, over here we call that the government. Parasites, good description.

Re:Regulations increase cost? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#46286979)

Europe has much more government than America, and far more regulation, yet healthcare there costs a fraction as much, even when they're using medical devices manufactured in America.

Explain that one.

Re:Regulations increase cost? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46287283)

"Europe has much more government than America"

Yea? Wanna put the EU military up against the US military and debate that little gem?

I'm game.

Eurodork.

Re:Regulations increase cost? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#46288571)

Stupid typical warmongering American. Fuck off and die with your shitty healthcare.

Re:Regulations increase cost? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291597)

Typical cowardly leftist reactionary dolt.

Thanks for playing.

Re:Regulations increase cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46289741)

Oh, I thought the "Eurodork" was a signature.. But you're right, the level of bureaucracy in the US military has a reputation of being very significant and so is likely being heavier than that of most military organizations in the EU. I do have a suspicion, however, that certain armies in the EU are so bureaucratic that they might exceed the US military in that respect. It would be useful to measure the efficiencies of various organizations for the purposes of comparison and extraction of best practices during these financially challenging times. That is really what a useful alliance is all about.

Re:And how much would that cost in America? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#46286957)

You have no idea what you're talking about.

An artificial hip joint, made in America, costs around $15000 at an American hospital, even though it only cost a few hundred dollars to make (in America).

That exact same joint, flown to Belgium and installed at a hospital in Belgium, costs less than USD$1000.

Are you going to try to tell me that Belgium doesn't have state regulations?

Re:And how much would that cost in America? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46287089)

"Are you going to try to tell me that Belgium doesn't have state regulations?"

Good grief, do you read English? Then you are welcome to answer that question yourself. Otherwise you are welcome to fuck off.

"made in America, costs around $15000 at an American hospital, even though it only cost a few hundred dollars to make"

Of course this is exactly my point. *Egg-fucking-zactly*.

So tell me, genius, what is the driver behind the delta in numbers there?

It's like pulling teeth with you mouth breathing libs. This isn't rocket science, it's simple fucking logic and maths.

Re:And how much would that cost in America? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#46287853)

Belgium has more regulation than America. Things cost much, much less. Hence, regulation is a GOOD thing.

Are you really that fucking stupid?

Re:And how much would that cost in America? (1)

ananamouse (943446) | about 7 months ago | (#46387929)

Issue is really Regulators vs Lawyers.

Barely? Hardly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46286067)

I sneezed yesterday and it cost me $5.

Titanium? (2)

diakka (2281) | about 7 months ago | (#46283449)

Personally, I would have opted for adamantium.

Re:Titanium? (1)

gmclapp (2834681) | about 7 months ago | (#46284973)

DF reference (+1)

Re:Titanium? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46285055)

Are you insane?
Adamantium is magnetic and conductive.

I prefer having a non-magnetic metal in me, as Magneto can't rip it off.

Re:Titanium? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 months ago | (#46287051)

You don't know that adamantium is magnetic.

Lead is most certainly non-magnetic (same with copper), yet according to the first X-Men movie, Magneto has no trouble controlling lead bullets.

In the second movie, he stopped the X-Men's airplane from crashing. Airplanes aren't made from steel, they're made usually from aluminum, another totally non-magnetic substance.

Apparently, in the X-Men universe, ALL metals are magnetic.

Re:Titanium? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46288963)

Eddy currents maybe

Re:Titanium? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46292659)

Actually, that's very viable. See, for example the popular magnetic can crusher science experiment - the aluminum soda cans are put inside a coil, which is connected to a bank of large capacitors for a sudden, massive jolt of current. That coiled current creates a magnetic field, which then creates electric currents in the aluminum can - the eddy currents. This current going around the can in turn creates another magnetic field, which interacts with the first magnetic field; quickly and strongly enough to force the can walls inward faster than the speed of sound, resulting in a very satisfying boom and a dramatically reshaped can. Crank it up high enough, and you can tear the can in half, launching both ends. Or, "shrink a quarter" ( capturedlightning.com has lots of good examples of fun things to do with sudden, massive current.)

TLDR: Magneto should be able to induce currents in metals, and then interact with the magnetic fields those create.

Re:Titanium? (1)

richpoore (925284) | about 7 months ago | (#46285909)

Don't be so dense.

Great (2)

Sulphur (1548251) | about 7 months ago | (#46283463)

Ex-cell-ent. Can he still get an MRI with his implant?

Re:Great (1)

Hadlock (143607) | about 7 months ago | (#46283589)

Yes, Titanium is not a ferrous material.

Re:Great (2)

ubergeek2009 (1475007) | about 7 months ago | (#46283747)

It doesn't need to be ferrous, just conductive to prevent an MRI. However that doesn't mean that he can't get an MRI. Printed composites are not terribly conductive, so that may make it possible, but I cannot know for sure without looking at the literature/testing.

Re:Great (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46284905)

Printed composites are not terribly conductive

Please do let us know how the conductivity of titanium is affected when it is sintered.

Re:Great (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 7 months ago | (#46286917)

Yes, Titanium is not a ferrous material.

I have a titanium plate in my neck and while it is not impacted by an MRI (ie not ripped out), the MRI is impacted by it. Images in that area are pretty much worthless

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291413)

You did that, just to answer a question on Slashdot? I'm impressed!!

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46284805)

Titanium is non-magnetic, so it should be just fine for an MRI.

Supa Troll! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46283651)

You guys know which 3D printed item ISN'T still holding up after 3 years right?

I'll give you a clue: It starts with G and ends with UN.

I read the title as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46283725)

3D printed penis holding up (erect? Lol) after 3 years...

Re:I read the title as... (2)

jimshatt (1002452) | about 7 months ago | (#46283769)

No you didn't.

misread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46283779)

Am I the only person who read "penis" instead of "pelvis" in the title? Figured I'd mis-interpreted when I got to the "would be losing so much bone".

Embarrassing bit, I'm a surgical-track doctor with research in SLM for orthopaedic implants...

Re: misread (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46284321)

Read the comment above you and you'll have the answer. Or are you totally illiterate? Moron.

Now I will be getting "Print .." instead Enlarge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46283913)

Now I will be getting the emails "Print out your ... " instead of "Enlarge your ..."...

Opppsss, sorry this was pelvis...

Remove 2 letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46284025)

Oh no! I misread the title of the posting. I dropped 2 letters somehow.

Democrats more likely to think astrology is scient (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46284167)

Study: Democrats more likely to think astrology is scientific, less likely to know Earth revolves around the sun

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/17/study-democrats-more-likely-to-think-astrology-is-scientific-less-likely-to-know-earth-revolves-around-the-sun/

Why the disparity? One possibility is education. Follow the last link and scroll down to Table 7 and you’ll see, as expected, that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to see astrology as scientific. According to the very first polls taken on the tea party movement in 2010, TPers are better educated (and wealthier) than the population on average. That probably explains why “conservative Republican” is at the bottom of the list above. On the other hand, exit polls from election day 2012 show Obama winning only narrowly among voters without a college degree. Maybe the education gap between the parties isn’t so pronounced. Or maybe income is somehow a better peg for astrological belief than education is: O did win heavily among poorer voters.

Another possibility is faith. It may be that the more devoutly you believe in a religion, the less likely you are to give credence to a quasi-religious belief system (which nonetheless purports to be “scientific”) like astrology. That would help explain why Republicans, the more religious of the two parties, are more skeptical. On the Democratic side, it’s a mirror image of the same story: Liberals are more likely to be religious skeptics than other Democrats and that bleeds over into skepticism of astrology, which pushes their numbers lower than moderate or conservative Dems. But not too low — one of the striking findings here is that even lefties are more than 10 points more likely to find scientific value in astrology than righties are.

Re: Democrats more likely to think astrology is sc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46284185)

I know this is un-PC, but it's probably because Democrats are more likely to be black. And we asl know how superstitious black's are

Re:Democrats more likely to think astrology is sci (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 6 months ago | (#46290129)

Isn't that the study that got debunked because it turmed out the bulk of the people rating astrology as scientific had misread it as "astronomy"?

If so, it might say more about Democrats' literacy than their their belief in astrology.

It would also be what is expected, given that the consituency of the Democratic party is heavily weighted toward groups of people who have been the victims of poor public schools.

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46284247)

these rules wiLl

Misread (1)

mrv00t (858087) | about 7 months ago | (#46284281)

I misread this as 3-D printed...well, nevermind, you get it.

Re:Misread (2)

drainbramage (588291) | about 7 months ago | (#46285183)

Elvis?
A 3-d printed Elvis is exactly what I thought too!

Apologies for this rude interruption (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46284341)

But, as I'm again redirected to the Beta Interface: #BetaSucks!

We can rebuild him. We have the technology. (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 7 months ago | (#46284361)

(...)

Re:We can rebuild him. We have the technology. (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about 7 months ago | (#46288811)

Maybe. But he's still an asshole.

3D Printed Penis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46284621)

My 3D printed penis is also "holding up" quite well.

FristR stop.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46284937)

Just the beginning (2)

jalvarez13 (1321457) | about 7 months ago | (#46285125)

Look at this: New 3D Printer by MarkForged Can Print With Carbon Fiber [popularmechanics.com] Definitely more companies are going to develop products like these...

Imagine the possibilities it opens for elder and disabled people care. And with the current ageing of the population in developed countries, this will certainly be a huge industry.

Yeah, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46285177)

How much use has the pelvis got? Know what I mean, know what I mean?

Misread the Subject (1)

RendonWI (958388) | about 7 months ago | (#46285421)

Came in for a story on a 3D printed penis, left disappointed.

This is what bothers me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46289955)

and the patient is able to walk with a cane

We need much better artificial joints and hips so that the patients are able to run with them. It will be good for the healthcare costs as the society gets "grayer."

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>