By
The AAOP's Thursday morning’s Lessons in Additive Manufacturing for Orthotists & Prosthetists session explored how additive manufacturing is reshaping the orthotics and prosthetics industry. Moderated by Tara Wright, MSOP, CPO, LPO, FAAOP, the panel featured expert perspectives from David Johnson (HP), Dan Blocka (Boundless Biomechanical Bracing Inc.), and Brent Wright (Advanced 3D). The discussion highlighted the evolution of 3D printing, its impact on clinical workflows, adoption challenges, and future opportunities for integrating additive manufacturing into O&P practices.
The Evolution and Impact of 3D Printing in O&P
David Johnson opened the discussion by outlining the broader landscape of 3D printing and its increasing role in digital manufacturing. He emphasized that while 3D printing has been around since the 1980s, its transition from prototyping to functional manufacturing has accelerated in recent years, with companies like HP leading innovations in polymer-based printing. “We’re going through a digital transformation, where additive manufacturing is just one tool in a larger ecosystem,” he explained, highlighting its role in scalable, cost-effective solutions.
He also touched on the importance of standards and validation, using the example of General Motors, which has successfully implemented 3D printing standards. He suggested that the O&P field could benefit from similar standardization efforts: “Creating industry-wide standards would set a benchmark for safety, performance, and repeatability.”
Real-World Implementation and Challenge
Dan Blocka shared his facility’s decade-long journey into additive manufacturing, emphasizing that adopting digital workflows requires significant investment in infrastructure, training, and resources. His team at Boundless Biomechanical Bracing underwent a major shift, hiring engineers alongside orthotists to bridge the gap between clinical expertise and advanced manufacturing technologies. “Bringing in engineers was a game-changer. They offer skills in material science and design optimization that our profession traditionally lacks,” Blocka noted.
However, he also pointed out the practical challenges, such as clinician resistance to change, the learning curve for digital design, and the costs associated with AM technology. “Our monthly printing costs range from $10,000 to $20,000, and unexpected downtime can set us back significantly,” he revealed, stressing the need for scalable business models to sustain AM adoption.
Clinical Applications and Patient Impact
Brent Wright provided real-world case studies showcasing how 3D printing is enhancing patient outcomes and accessibility. One of the most compelling examples was his work in Guatemala, where he remotely scanned a patient’s limb using just an iPhone and sent the data to a designer in Indianapolis. “Within an hour, I had a design ready to print overnight—without ever touching the file myself,” he said, demonstrating how decentralized design and centralized production could revolutionize access to prosthetic care in underserved regions.
Wright also highlighted the benefits of customized, flexible prosthetic sockets, explaining how 3D-printed designs allow for variable density and improved patient comfort. He recalled one patient who switched from a rigid socket to a flexible one, noting: “He felt more stable and secure in the flexible socket than in his traditional one. That’s the kind of impact we’re looking for.”
Adoption Barriers and Potential Solutions
The panel agreed that while 3D printing offers significant advantages, there are hurdles to widespread adoption. Clinicians often struggle with material limitations, post-processing requirements, and the need for design automation. Wright pointed out that some practitioners hesitate to embrace AM due to concerns about print quality and adjustability, saying, “Many aren’t happy with the texture and porosity of prints, which raises hygiene concerns.”
To combat this, companies are investing in better post-processing techniques and automated digital design tools. Wright showcased an app that allows clinicians to modify socket designs with a few clicks, aiming to eliminate the steep learning curve: “We want clinicians to focus on patient care, not CAD software.”
The Future of Additive Manufacturing in O&P
Looking ahead, collaboration and education will be key to advancing 3D printing in O&P. The panelists encouraged attendees to experiment with AM technology, even on a small scale, noting that entry costs have dropped significantly. “For as little as $400, you can get a printer and start exploring,” Wright advised.
Blocka suggested that forming consortiums could help smaller clinics share costs and resources, making AM more accessible. He also hinted at ongoing research into improving patient satisfaction and clinical usability, with upcoming publications expected to shed light on the long-term viability of 3D-printed orthotic and prosthetic devices.
