Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Best Use Of A 3D Printer Yet! — Parallax Forums

Best Use Of A 3D Printer Yet!

NWCCTVNWCCTV Posts: 3,629
edited 2014-12-06 21:43 in General Discussion
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/3d-printed-heart-saves-babys-life-as-medical-technology-leaps-ahead-9776931.html#

2 week old baby saved because of new technology. THIS is what it's all about IMO.

Comments

  • GadgetmanGadgetman Posts: 2,436
    edited 2014-12-06 03:18
    I think Queen said it best...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p_1QSUsbsM
  • Martin_HMartin_H Posts: 4,051
    edited 2014-12-06 10:08
    Wow, that's ingenious thinking.
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2014-12-06 14:11
    The article makes it sound like the 3D printed heart was the key to being able to plan the surgery, stating that (in the past) normaly the first time they see the heart is when they open the chest. However, in order to print the heart they first need a 3D model. So they actually would have a full 3D model of the heart to look at and plan the surgery with. The only difference here is that they can hold a model - which of course has some value. My guess is that this 3D printed heart was an accessory used in planning the surgery, not the key. I am skeptical that it was the printed heart that saved the baby.
  • NWCCTVNWCCTV Posts: 3,629
    edited 2014-12-06 14:45
    From what I saw on CBS news about a very similar situation here in the states is that they use MRI's for the design phase and print a replica from that. I will find the story and post a link.

    Edit: CBS News Link
    http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/3d-printed-heart-saves-babys-life/
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2014-12-06 16:05
    Sure, my point is that the news story is being a bit sensational. They had all the information they needed from the MRI scan. They can view that in 3D on a computer all they want. The 3D printed model would be nice to hold and view but the real work was done by the MRI. To say that the plastic model is what saved the baby is an insult to the MRI and associated programs that allow the heart to be viewed and studied. Would the baby have died without the plastic model? The news stories say yes, logic says no.

    I am sure that my desire for news stories to be presented realistically will never be fully realized. ;-(
  • NWCCTVNWCCTV Posts: 3,629
    edited 2014-12-06 16:32
    Aw geez, did ya have to burst my bubble like that??? :-(
  • xanaduxanadu Posts: 3,347
    edited 2014-12-06 20:26
    Negative. I work for 50+ doctors. Anything, even the smallest bit of technology that helps them do their job is multiplied tenfold in their results. None of them would turn down additional means of evaluating something when it comes to saving a life. It doesn't matter what they do with it, I've stopped trying to understand such things. What matters is we are obligated to use technology to do things like this.
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2014-12-06 21:02
    Was the "negative" to my question about whether the plastic model saved the babies life, or that you disagree with my assertion that a plastic model was a benefit to the doctors, but wasn't necessary for saving the life of the baby? If the latter then I agree with all that you said except for that first word.

    Put another way, the printed heart did not provide any new information, but another way to visualize existing information. It was an aid. Again, I will say that this has value. I'm not knocking it, I am just not buying the story that it was what was responsible for saving a life. Maybe someone can come up with what additional information this 3D printed heart provided - it would be tough I think, since it was created from an existing, fully developed 3D model provided by the MRI.
  • electromanjelectromanj Posts: 270
    edited 2014-12-06 21:42
    Personally I can relate to this as the difference of reading a PDF manual on my computer screen vs. reading a printed manual. Being able to quickly shuffle from page to page in the physical world suits my understanding better then the delay of scrolling on the computer screen. Perhaps the ability to quickly manipulate the "hard copy" of the heart in the hands of a surgeon does make a difference.

    Should we adapt to technology or should technology adapt to us?
  • xanaduxanadu Posts: 3,347
    edited 2014-12-06 21:43
    I was trying to reinforce the positive aspects. You're more familiar with 3D printing and associated hype than I. I also work in the medical industry every day. I'm drawing a parallel to what I see. Surgeons work with their hands, most if not all doctors would rather hold something than look at a screen. The concept is simple. Does a 3D printing medium exist that would make this worthwhile? Sure, there are doubts. My job experience tells me that far lesser means have produced worthwhile results. There is no reason to assume this wouldn't do the same.

    I also agree it is more about the MRI tech, obviously a physical model could be produced before 3D printers. Did that give everyone the capability to do so? Who knows, look at the entire scale. Smaller offices could augment technology only previously available to much larger practices. That is the kind of growth that the medical industry needs. It's great that they are able to use any technology to their benefit.

    What if we could only fly multirotor on a computer sim? Not a chance!
Sign In or Register to comment.