Day 1 :
University of Nottingham, UK
Time : 10:00-10:40
Clive Roberts completed his Graduation in Physics in 1987 and PhD degree in Surface Physics in 1991 at Imperial College. He is currently Head of the School of Pharmacy-University of Nottingham and in the past, he has been the Founder and Director of the Nottingham Nanotechnology Centre (2007-2013). His research is focused on “Improving methods to develop new medicines” and has led to over 300 research publications. He has over 25 years of experience in “Formulation methods supported by advanced nanoscale characterization”. He has aided the development of a number of delivery platforms and medicines with many industrial partners. He has been working on the 2D and 3D printing of solid dosage formulations. He was a Co-founder of Molecular Profiles Ltd (now Juniper Pharmaceuticals) and was Founder of Eminate Ltd, an IP translation company of University of Nottingham.
Queen’s University, Canada
Time : 11:00-11:40
Randy E Ellis is a Professor at Queen's University at Kingston. His primary Queen's appointment is at School of Computing, and he is also appointed as a Professor in Departments of Mechanical and Material Engineering, Surgery, and Biomedical and Molecular Sciences. He is the Project Leader of a large multidisciplinary group that investigates advanced health-care delivery. He is Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineering and of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. He has published more than 300 refereed scientific contributions and served extensively on editorial boards and program committees of major international conferences.
This work is a retrospective analysis of our 13 years of experience and a prediction of future prospects. A patient-specific instrument (PSI) is typically implemented as a rigid structure with two physically linked elements: a negative or mirror surface that physically mates with an anatomical region; and a means of guiding a surgical instrument, typically a surgical drill. Historically, early PSI’s were created from CT scans and manufactured by computer-numerical machining. It is now more common to use additive manufacturing to create a PSI. Although early PSI’s provided an improvement technical accuracy, more recent clinical trials are bringing into question the clinical benefit for high volume procedures. We believe that the seeming discrepancy between high technical accuracy and subsequent patient outcomes is attributable to two effects: selection of the procedure and patient for PSI application, and the inability to intraoperatively choose a surgical alternative. Since 2005, we have performed hundreds PSI-guided cases. These have included: hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty; post-traumatic total knee arthroplasty; knee osteochondral transplantation in younger patients; radius osteotomy about the wrist; pelvic reconstruction following oncological surgery; peri-orbital tumor access; and many one-of-a-kind, technically difficult, orthopedic procedures. We have found significant longer-term improvements for hip resurfacing, which is consistent with our 20+-year successes in image-guided orthopedic surgery. These surgical procedures share the properties of being technically difficult and in having nearby bone surfaces that are naturally free of osteophytes and periosteum, both of which can physically interfere with the mating process of PSI application. We have found PSI’s to effectively solve relatively straightforward navigation problems. The technique relies critically on a high quality CT 3D image that can be easily and accurately segmented. Osteophytes, in particular, have been obstacles in registration regions. Commercially available PSI’s may not adequately address this fundamental problem. When physical registration is problematic, the PSI technique must be converted to surgical navigation or to an older, non-navigated technology. We propose to bridge this technology gap by linking the physical registration of a PSI with electromagnetic navigation. In laboratory studies and a pilot cadaveric trial, this hybrid of a PSI with navigation has proven to be as accurate as navigation alone and considerably easier to perform. This technical advance places additive manufacturing of a PSI in a spectrum of technical solutions, potentially broadening the reach and effectiveness of them as implementations of image-guided surgery
Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Poland
Time : 11:40-12:20
Bogdan Dybala has completed his PhD from the Wroclaw University of Science and Technology and continued for the habilitation procedure, completed in 2014. He is the deputy director of the Centre for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies (CAMT), a research and education group at the University. His research interests include additive manufacturing and reverse engineering, especially in biomedical applications. He has published more than 35 papers in reputed journals and has been serving as a reviewer for journals and funding organizations.
Medical products require high quality and functionality – manufacturers seek ways of improving them and are willing to adopt new technologies, including for additive manufacturing (AM). Some medical products perform better, if at all, if they closely fit anatomic features of their user – this calls for capabilities to design and manufacture 3-dimensional geometries, much easier to achieve with AM than with more conventional technologies.
The presentation will cover methods of designing and producing anatomic models for training and education purposes, models for off-line surgical operation planning or rehearsal and tools supporting such operations – products most valuable for their shapes, based on selected patients’ anatomies.
More advanced medical products manufactured with AM are implants – either improved versions of established solutions, like hip or knee joint replacements with better biomechanical properties, or totally new types of personalised implants, for example scaffolds supporting bone regrowth in patients with damaged or surgically removed part of a mandible. The presentation will discuss methods of manufacturing such implants and show future potential of additive manufacturing in tissue and organ bioprinting.