Recent Applications of Three Dimensional Printing in Cardiovascular Medicine.

Three dimensional (3D) printing, which consists in the conversion of digital images into a 3D physical model, is a promising and versatile field that, over the last decade, has experienced a rapid development in medicine. Cardiovascular medicine, in particular, is one of the fastest growing area for medical 3D printing. In this review, we firstly describe the major steps and the most common technologies used in the 3D printing process, then we present current applications of 3D printing with relevance to the cardiovascular field. The technology is more frequently used for the creation of anatomical 3D models useful for teaching, training, and procedural planning of complex surgical cases, as well as for facilitating communication with patients and their families. However, the most attractive and novel application of 3D printing in the last years is bioprinting, which holds the great potential to solve the ever-increasing crisis of organ shortage. In this review, we then present some of the 3D bioprinting strategies used for fabricating fully functional cardiovascular tissues, including myocardium, heart tissue patches, and heart valves. The implications of 3D bioprinting in drug discovery, development, and delivery systems are also briefly discussed, in terms of in vitro cardiovascular drug toxicity. Finally, we describe some applications of 3D printing in the development and testing of cardiovascular medical devices, and the current regulatory frameworks that apply to manufacturing and commercialization of 3D printed products.

Regulating 3D-Printed Guns PostHeller: Why Two Steps Are Better Than One.

This article describes why a constitutional test that relies exclusively on history and tradition for deciding modern firearm regulations is woefully inadequate when applied to modern technologies. It explains the unique advancements in firearm technology - specifically, ghost guns - that challenge the viability of a purely historical test, even if legal scholars or judges attempt to reason by analogy. This article argues that the prevailing, two-step approach, which incorporates both history and tradition, and requires a judicial examination of the purposes and methods supporting a challenged firearm regulation, should apply nationwide. That a dissenting faction of conservative judges seeks to ignore the prevailing approach presents a potentially dangerous path for Second Amendment jurisprudence. This article draws from certain historical gun laws to illustrate the difficult legwork that analogies must do under a purely historical test. It uses the advent of ghost guns as a case study to offer guidance for judges in their rulemaking practices regarding Second Amendment cases.

Regulating 3D-printed medical products.

Additive manufacturing [also known as three-dimensional (3D) printing] is the layer-wise deposition of material to produce a 3D object. This rapidly emerging technology has the potential to produce new medical products with unprecedented structural and functional designs. Here, we describe the U.S. regulatory landscape of additive manufactured (3D-printed) medical devices and biologics and highlight key challenges and considerations.

Additive Manufacturing with 3D Printing: Progress from Bench to Bedside.

Three-dimensional (3D) printing was discovered in the 1980s, and many industries have embraced it, but the pharmaceutical industry is slow or reluctant to adopt it. Spiritam® is the first and only 3D-printed drug product approved by FDA in 2015. Since then, the FDA has not approved any 3D-printed drug product due to technical and regulatory issues. The 3D printing process cannot compete with well-established and understood conventional processes for making solid dosage forms. However, pharmaceutical companies can utilize it where mass production is not required; rather, consistency, precision, and accuracy in quality are paramount. There are many 3D printing technologies available, and not all of them are amenable to pharmaceutical manufacturing. Each 3D technology has certain prerequisites in terms of material that it can handle. Some of the pertinent technical and regulatory issues are as follows: Current Good Manufacturing Practice, in-process tests and process control, and cleaning validation. Other promising area of 3D printing use is printing medications for patients with special needs in a hospital and/or pharmacy setting with minimum regulatory oversight. This technology provides a novel opportunity for in-hospital compounding of necessary medicines to support patient-specific medications. However, aspects of the manufacturing challenges and quality control considerations associated with the varying formulation and processing methods need to be fully understood before 3D printing can emerge as a therapeutic tool. With these points in mind, this review paper focuses on 3D technologies amenable for pharmaceutical manufacturing, excipient requirement, process understanding, and technical and regulatory challenges.

Print Me an Organ? Ethical and Regulatory Issues Emerging from 3D Bioprinting in Medicine.

Recent developments of three-dimensional printing of biomaterials (3D bioprinting) in medicine have been portrayed as demonstrating the potential to transform some medical treatments, including providing new responses to organ damage or organ failure. However, beyond the hype and before 3D bioprinted organs are ready to be transplanted into humans, several important ethical concerns and regulatory questions need to be addressed. This article starts by raising general ethical concerns associated with the use of bioprinting in medicine, then it focuses on more particular ethical issues related to experimental testing on humans, and the lack of current international regulatory directives to guide these experiments. Accordingly, this article (1) considers whether there is a limit as to what should be bioprinted in medicine; (2) examines key risks of significant harm associated with testing 3D bioprinting for humans; (3) investigates the clinical trial paradigm used to test 3D bioprinting; (4) analyses ethical questions of irreversibility, loss of treatment opportunity and replicability; (5) explores the current lack of a specific framework for the regulation and testing of 3D bioprinting treatments.

Introducing 3D Printed Models as Demonstrative Evidence at Criminal Trials.

This case report presents one of the first reported uses of a 3D printed exhibit in an English homicide trial, in which two defendants were accused of beating their victim to death. The investigation of this crime included a micro-CT scan of the victim's skull, which assisted the pathologist to determine the circumstances of the assault, in particular regarding the number of assault weapons and perpetrators. The scan showed two distinct injury shapes, suggesting the use of either two weapons or a single weapon with geometrically distinct surfaces. It subsequently served as the basis for a 3D print, which was shown in court in one of the first examples that 3D printed physical models have been introduced as evidence in a criminal trial in the United Kingdom. This paper presents the decision-making process of whether to use 3D printed evidence or not.

Use of fused deposit modeling for additive manufacturing in hospital facilities: European certification directives.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to identify current European Union regulations governing hospital-based use of fused deposit modeling (FDM), as implemented via desktop three-dimensional (3D) printers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature and Internet sources were screened, searching for official documents, regulations/legislation, and views of specialized attorneys or consultants regarding European regulations for 3D printing or additive manufacturing (AM) in a healthcare facility. A detailed review of the latest amendment (2016) of the European Parliament and Council legislation for medical devices and its classification was performed, which has regularly updated published guidelines for medical devices, that are classified by type and duration of patient contact. As expected, regulations increase in accordance with the level (I-III) of classification. RESULTS: Custom-made medical devices are subject to different regulations than those controlling serially mass-produced items, as originally specified in 98/79/EC European Parliament and Council legislation (1993) and again recently amended (2016). Healthcare facilities undertaking in-house custom production are not obliged to fully follow the directives as stipulated, given an exception for this scenario (Article 4.4a, 98/79/EC). CONCLUSION: Patient treatment and diagnosis with the aid of customized 3D printing in a healthcare facility can be performed without fully meeting the European Parliament and Council legislation if the materials used are ISO 10993 certified and article 4.4a applies.

Social and legal frame conditions for 3D (and) bioprinting in medicine.

The beginnings of three-dimensional (3D) printing and bioprinting can be traced to as early as 1984. From printing inorganic models for the generation of biologic scaffolds, additive manufacturing (AM) developed to the direct printing of organic materials, including specialized tissues, proteins, and cells. In recent years, these technologies have gained significantly in relevance, and there have been several innovations, especially in the field of regenerative medicine. It is becoming increasingly important to consider the economic and social aspects of AM, particularly in education and information of medical human resources, society, and politics, as well as for the establishment of homogenous, globally adapted legal regulations.

Regulatory Considerations in the Design and Manufacturing of Implantable 3D-Printed Medical Devices.

Three-dimensional (3D) printing, or additive manufacturing, technology has rapidly penetrated the medical device industry over the past several years, and innovative groups have harnessed it to create devices with unique composition, structure, and customizability. These distinctive capabilities afforded by 3D printing have introduced new regulatory challenges. The customizability of 3D-printed devices introduces new complexities when drafting a design control model for FDA consideration of market approval. The customizability and unique build processes of 3D-printed medical devices pose unique challenges in meeting regulatory standards related to the manufacturing quality assurance. Consistent material powder properties and optimal printing parameters such as build orientation and laser power must be addressed and communicated to the FDA to ensure a quality build. Postprinting considerations unique to 3D-printed devices, such as cleaning, finishing and sterilization are also discussed. In this manuscript we illustrate how such regulatory hurdles can be navigated by discussing our experience with our group's 3D-printed bioresorbable implantable device.

[3D printing in health care facilities: What legislation in France?]. / L'impression 3D à l'hôpital: quelle réglementation en France ?

Health care facilities more and more use 3D printing, including making their own medical devices (MDs). However, production and marketing of MDs are regulated. The goal of our work was to clarify what is the current French regulation that should be applied concerning the production of custom-made MDs produced by 3D printing in a health care facility. MDs consist of all devices used for diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of diseases in patients. Prototypes and anatomic models are not considered as MDs and no specific laws apply to them. Cutting guides, splints, osteosynthesis plates or prosthesis are MDs. In order to become a MD manufacturer in France, a health care facility has to follow the requirements of the 93/42/CEE directive. In addition, custom-made 3D-printed MDs must follow the annex VIII of the directive. This needs the writing of a declaration of conformity and the respect of the essential requirements (proving that a MD is secure and conform to what is expected), the procedure has to be qualified, a risk analysis and a control of the biocompatibility of the material have to be fulfilled. The documents proving that these rules have been respected have to be available. Becoming a regulatory manufacturer of MD in France is possible for a health care facility but the specifications have to be respected.

Printing Insecurity? The Security Implications of 3D-Printing of Weapons.

In 2013, the first gun printed out of plastic by a 3D-printer was successfully fired in the U.S. This event caused a major media hype about the dangers of being able to print a gun. Law enforcement agencies worldwide were concerned about this development and the potentially huge security implications of these functional plastic guns. As a result, politicians called for a ban of these weapons and a control of 3D-printing technology. This paper reviews the security implications of 3D-printing technology and 3D guns. It argues that current arms control and transfer policies are adequate to cover 3D-printed guns as well. However, while this analysis may hold up currently, progress in printing technology needs to be monitored to deal with future dangers pre-emptively.