Six smart guidelines for high-tech manufacture on low-tech 3D printers
the case of the 3Flex
Fabian Trauzettel (TU Delft - Medical Instruments & Bio-Inspired Technology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)
Emmanuel Vander Poorten (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)
Mouloud Ourak (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)
Jenny Dankelman (TU Delft - Medical Instruments & Bio-Inspired Technology)
Paul Breedveld (TU Delft - Medical Instruments & Bio-Inspired Technology)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
While articulated surgical instruments have enabled the proliferation of minimally invasive interventions, procedures such as laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery are waning in popularity. One potential reason for this decline is a lack of sufficiently dexterous instruments. Although multi-steerable instruments exist, these are often complex and therefore expensive assemblies. Even when 3D printing was used to simplify the design of these instruments, the requirement for high-performance 3D printers limited the reduction in manufacturing costs. To tackle this issue, we propose six guidelines for converting a 3D printed compliant medical instrument from printing on a Digital Light Processing (DLP) printer to a Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) printer. These guidelines provide a framework to manage and compensate for differences in the two processes to achieve comparable results at a reduced cost. The proposed guidelines were evaluated by assembling a FFF 3D printed prototype that shows equivalent performance to its DLP 3D printed counterpart.