.png)
The Prosthetics and Orthotics Podcast
The Prosthetics and Orthotics Podcast is a deep dive into what 3D printing and Additive Manufacturing mean for prosthetics and orthotics. We’re Brent and Joris both passionate about 3D printing and Additive Manufacturing. We’re on a journey together to explore the digitization of prostheses and orthoses together. Join us! Have a question, suggestion or guest for us? Reach out. Or have a listen to the podcast here. The Prosthetic and Orthotic field is experiencing a revolution where manufacturing is being digitized. 3D scanning, CAD software, machine learning, automation software, apps, the internet, new materials and Additive Manufacturing are all impactful in and of themselves. These developments are now, in concert, collectively reshaping orthotics and prosthetics right now. We want to be on the cutting edge of these developments and understand them as they happen. We’ve decided to do a podcast to learn, understand and explore the revolution in prosthetics and orthotics.
The Prosthetics and Orthotics Podcast
Design Once, Deploy Everywhere: Automation Software at Scale with Fredrik Ericsson
We explore how foaming TPU, belt printers, and clinician-led automation can bring custom foot orthoses in-house, cut costs, and reduce lead times from weeks to hours. Fredrik from CADmed shares what actually works, what doesn’t, and how remote design plus per-pair pricing changes the game.
• why automation increases clinician control rather than removes it
• carving versus printing tradeoffs on speed, finish, and cost
• foaming TPU benefits including smoother surfaces and less waste
• belt printers for continuous TPU production and better surface feel
• FDM advantages over powder bed fusion for insoles
• practical lattices and gradients without overengineering
• decentralizing production to clinics for faster delivery
• remote design, slicing, and printer control with per-pair pricing
• scaling systems for reliability, repeatability, and low friction
Special thanks to Advanced 3D for sponsoring this episode.
Welcome to season 12 of the Prosthetics and Orthotics Podcast. This is where we connect with experts in the field, patients who use these devices, physical therapists, and the vendors who help bring it all together. Our mission remains the same: to share stories, tips, and insights that help improve patient outcomes. Tune in and join the conversation. We're glad you're here and hope it's the highlight of your day.
Speaker 5:Hello everyone. My name is Yoris Peels, and this is another episode of the Prosthetics and Orthodox podcast with Brent Wright. How are you doing, Brent?
Speaker 4:Hey, Yoris, I'm I'm doing well, man. Saw some interesting stuff. I know we talked about the Form Lab stuff last time, and then there was a little bit of chatter. I think it might be our episode that actually went the fastest up, uh, which is we kind of created this three-step uh process of how to get involved with 3D printing. Yeah. Yeah. And uh I thought it was really good. We uh we actually should expand upon that. Maybe we should use AI to expand upon it for us. But uh I I thought it was a I thought I'm anti-AI.
Speaker 5:I'm an AI Ludart. Okay. This is a this is a handmade podcast. That is actually true with love by humans.
Speaker 4:Yes, I do edit every single one of them and and take out all the there's there's ways to use AI to to make it, but what I found is it does interrupt the flow. You know, I think we have flow. Other people may think that we don't have flow, but uh nonetheless, it is uh definitely made with love and caring for sure. So who is our guest today? So I'm really excited to have uh Frederick Erickson on with CADME. And so the neat thing about what Fred is doing is really focusing on what are some of the ways that we can automate some of the processes, not only with foot orthoses, but now moving into AFOs and SMOs and potentially prostheses. But we've been working together on some projects off and on for a while now. And I just uh really appreciate his take on it. He is not a clinician, and so it's always great to hear kind of like the software aspect of it of why did it get done that way? And I, you know, I might be going a little bit far. He may or may not appreciate some of my feedback, you know, when I say, Well, why did you do it that way? Or what about this? And uh so I'm really excited to have him on to kind of share his journey and then give us also a peek of potentially what is coming up, what is currently available, what is coming up. I think it's gonna be a really good conversation.
Speaker 2:Cool, cool. So, Frederick, uh, tell us how did you get involved with OMP? Well, first, thanks for having me on. I got involved because my my parents were involved in the OMP. So I started off pouring plaster, filling plaster casts, and then I got promoted to designing some of those positives. And from there they saw that I could design photorthosis from plaster positives. So my manager said, Well, then you can design it on on the computer. So I I got to to start doing CAD work um at my previous job.
Speaker 5:And then and how long have you been doing this? So this is CAD 3D printer or CAD orthosis kind of journey.
Speaker 2:Well, uh more than 10 years now I've been working with digital photosis, maybe 15 even. Ten years ago, I think I started CADMED. We uh we started as a just a production um facility, and then we hired software developers to build the actual technology that that we're using to produce the devices.
Speaker 5:And is it now like true? Like on the one hand, would you advise people now if you want to look at this digitization thing, we say you must learn CAD, this is the future, or do you think there's gonna be so many kind of semi-automated tools out there, you're just gonna be press a button and then most of the at least the data capture of the device building will be done like automatically?
Speaker 2:Depends on what the type of device and and I think automation is for for some things it it it gives more control to the practitioner. Because many times the prescription, at least for podiatry, they they send in the cast and expect someone else to do the design and get it produced. With with automation, you can take that a step back and give the practitioner the results in let's say 60 seconds, even less, 30 seconds, and then they can in turn change that, giving them more control over the final device. It depends on the complexity of the devices, too. I think I'm not an I'm not a clinician, so my job is to make the practitioner and the OMP clinicians happy.
Speaker 4:I think that's a pretty interesting way to look at it, and I haven't thought about it that that way, as far as automation can help you make better clinical decisions, especially if you're the one doing it real time and you're used to using a contract manufacturer that somebody else's hands are doing the work, and it may not be exactly like what you're talking about. So I think that's a pretty interesting way of looking at it. In the podiatry realm, do you find that there are a lot of different styles of foot orthoses or uh say complexities or modifications, or can you kind of bundle them together to help people create these workflows that are specifically for them?
Speaker 2:Well, I would say uh at least the the clinics, clinics in the northern Europe that I'm working to, you you don't even have local uh differences in how they work. Within the same clinic, they have deviations in how they work. So, so it's a must to tailor the automations to the practitioners' wishes. I mean, they are the competent person. So if they decide that this is the way it should be automated or designed, we have to listen and give them that.
Speaker 4:Can you share just a little bit? I mean, you mentioned that you've been doing this, been at this for a while. And I think the one thing that I found interesting or fascinating is, you know, most people think digital and go ahead and move straight to 3D printing, but that's not necessarily the case. And there are some things that are worth 3D printing and some things that are just fast doing other ways. Can you share a little bit about your evolution uh uh of the digital space? Uh, because I know you were doing uh some carving and and things of that nature, and then picking and choosing what you're using additive manufacturing for.
Speaker 2:Well, we've had a quite when it comes to photosis, moving to 3D printing hasn't been uh that easy because the clinics that we work with, they're not they liked to be able to correct and change the results, and it's much easier using EVA. But now that we come, we're we're moving to materials like foaming TPU that are much more like EVA and we're seeing it being a bit more there's a little bit more traction towards foaming TPU just because of the practitioner being used to the look and feel of a certain material. Does that make sense?
Speaker 4:Yeah, and so can you tell a little bit about the speed process though? Because I know that you do a lot of carving and still a a a lot of it. What is what does that look like? And why would people choose carving over 3D printing? And do you ever see a point where stuff moves more towards 3D printing, or is it really a balance between the two?
Speaker 2:If I mean it it takes us about 15 minutes to carve a pair of photosis, and if we want the same finish using foaming TPU 3D printed, it takes us about three hours. Having said that, now that the price has dropped so dramatically on these machine 3D printers and they take a lot less space, I think I mean if you look if you look at southern Europe, you you've seen the shift already, I would say. But northern Europe, it's it's a bit slower. But I think the shift is gonna happen now. Maybe not for all, but for many, once they see the results, once they see the results that we're coming up with here, I would say. Is that too uh too cocky?
Speaker 4:No, I mean that's I think that's interesting. Yeah, you know, this idea of the the carving being so fast, I mean, people really aren't fitting these things same day, right? So so so a little bit of time, say in the 3D printing, especially if you're getting pretty close, it's not really a big deal.
Speaker 2:I don't care about technical time. If the investment in the machine is nothing and the the space it takes to house the machine is minuscule, then three hours for for a pair is is nothing.
Speaker 4:Would you also say that the the technical time for getting to the end or the automation side of things where you have a workflow from the from the beginning to the end, right? From the clinician's hands straight to the printer, that's that's really what we're after after is not having all these little steps, but it's like you have the clinical and then you have the manufacturing, and whatever you can do under the hood for the manufacturing, that's going to be good for not only the patients, but also for the clinicians.
Speaker 2:And you want to make that journey between from scan to print frictionless, as frictionless as possible for the practitioner. That's our goal.
Speaker 4:So you mentioned a little bit about the foaming TPU and such. I mean, what are you seeing in that? Are you still treating these things with top covers? Are you doing three-quarter lengths? What are what are kind of some of the recipes that you're seeing coming out of the because you're kind of tip of the spear with some of this stuff in the manufacturing?
Speaker 2:We see almost zero post-processing on the foaming TPU, and we see almost zero waste. And the practitioners that we show these devices to, they say, well, this is very close to EVA. It looks better than the middle or the carved insults. So I I think for photosis, it's just a matter of time. Or for us, it's just a matter of time before it switches to a larger amount produced by 3D printers. I know that other other regions in the world are already moving, but maybe our region was the Northern Europe region is a bit particular about their EVA, or I don't know. You should you guys know better why some markets move and others don't.
Speaker 4:Where where do you think the story lies to uh push people or that will ultimately push them in a direction to this kind of zero-waste, beautiful foot orthosis that is 3D printed, even though it may take a little longer?
Speaker 2:That's well, I think the finished device has to look as they're the practitioners, what they're used to.
Speaker 5:I think to me, I think the interesting bit is that with what we can do with 3D printing ultimately is we can make like a gradient insult or we could just change it at every single point, right? We could change the infill and change, put in pockets of air, and we could really do things that you can't do with a subtractive process. So that to me is like that's the part where you'll be better, objectively better, and we're creeping towards that, I think. But I think I think it's important for the audience, I think, maybe to look a little bit at foaming TP of what it is. Uh, because uh TP is a basically a broad category, relatively broad category of elastomeric uh materials, different shore hardnesses and stuff. And the cool thing about foaming TPU is a foaming agent in it, and using the nozzle temperature, uh, you can change the nozzle temperature printer, and you can change the uh degree of expansion of the foam, so you can change that how that works, uh well, how that expresses itself in the model. So, Frederick, what does that mean for you using foaming TPU? What is the big difference apart from just the looks? We've gone over that. What else is the main difference there?
Speaker 2:Well, we can get it a bit softer than regular TPU, and it's not as plasticky. We have not um spent too much time changing hardness using nozzle temperature. We try to do changing infill density or lattice structures to modify density. Mostly it's you you can get away from this plastic feeling.
Speaker 5:Uh it feels it feels like much more luxurious and kind of yeah, I don't know what it is, like foamy, foamy, I don't know. It feels more like a kind of gel liner-ish, I guess. I don't know. I don't know how to explain it really. But there is there is real an uh and there's an added comfort benefit, right? Or have you do you have good feedback from people on that? I've I've heard good things, but I don't know if if you've heard so many good things that they really think they these things are very comfortable, right?
Speaker 2:Yeah, um the problem we've had with uncovered EVA that are directly milled from the EVA block is that it's um that the surface is a bit rough. And this is a non-issue with foaming TPU if you print it uh in the correct way. If you print it layer what do you call that? Well, if you print it on a regular XYZ machine from bottom layer to top layer, you might get some you need to post process to get that uh layer height to disappear. But if you do it on, for example, the belt printer, you get none of that roughness. Yeah, that's uh I like this.
Speaker 5:You guys are using delta machines right now or? No, belt, belt. Oh, belt, ah, belt driven. Oh, okay. That's interesting. Okay, okay. So uh yeah, so a little bit also for the audience, we have Cartesian called or Gantry type printers, a bit box, the printer you're probably familiar with. You see it at your kid's house or something like that, or your kid's friend's house, something like that. Those are great for a lot of things. Uh, but of course, you want to do production, there comes a lot of uh well, there comes there, you know, you have to every time open the little door and get the print out. And of course, there's some really, really weird things about printing TPU that mean it's it's it's but it's one of the trickier materials to print uh if you're printing at home. And then there's an alternative, and that's a belt-driven printer where you're basically putting a conveyor belt below a gantry, and then you're printing in profile, I think is the best way to describe it, which is uh which is great because you can print shoe after shoe after shoe. But also uh it really lends itself really well to printing TPU specifically, right?
Speaker 2:I love I mean we bought our first printer about because we really saw this continuous printing and an advantage. But I think we're on a pretty fifth one. And we don't have time to get into it. Um episode of the podcast released to some bought a couple now or Medicare 4. But now finally we think we can get it tuned in the low-cost machine tuned in well for TP was not.
Speaker 5:Yeah, because there's a bunch of belt printers. Do you mind like you don't have to talk about like what setup you're the most happy with right now and why? Because there is a bunch of belt printers out there from a thousand dollars or something to tens of thousands, actually. And and and and there's a big range out there. And what do you want to know? Which one are you happy with, or what kind of setup are you happy with, or what should we look out uh look look out for if we want to do that? We'll have to dive into that in the future. Basically, I I would say it's possible to be really sliced or something.
Speaker 1:Why not? I think you could tune in any of these. There's always less tooling.
Speaker 5:It's always been like a big deal, and I mentioned the extra thing. Wow. Now we're seeing a ton more tooling examples. I think it's interesting too.
Speaker 4:They've become hardware uh injection. Now how do you actually low running injection packaging and the tool path and the design side?
Speaker 5:And that's really where it's really very um, very high quality high precision type of stuff. Are we using 3D frame for enhancing? And also, you know, now with all the chaos or stuff, we're looking much more.
Speaker 1:Some tools make multiple style from multiple, which I've never seen before.
Speaker 2:High bridge devices where we can have a rock or so and then.
Speaker 5:Uh we saw multiples for latex, we saw multiples for components of the some parts and then combine them together. Um polyurus. Investing more in cheapening. Where do you want to invest more things like that?
Speaker 1:So we are if you need to do that.
Speaker:We're investing a lot of time with our developers to build functionality tooling for instance and automation. These are things for gradual infrastructure, gradual lattice.
Speaker 2:Doing modifiers in a slicer. We want to go in and actually the functions for the designer to control that. So we are we spend a lot of effort and time on the development side. But we also try to invest more in machines on the printing side. We have not sorry, we go on, go on. We have not gone full on the HP powderbread stuff because for us it's been it's too much of a risk investing. We're a small company, so it would be a a high, a big bet for us to buy one of those machines.
Speaker 5:No, but it's a very sensible thing, but especially if you yeah, if you if you're afraid it's a good sign. It means you're you're you're cognizant of what the limits of the business are. And so I think it's very good. Better than just drunkenly going and buying all sorts of stuff you don't need. So I think that's a very sensible system. After form next, is that what you're saying it happens sometimes? No, no, no. I mean, I think it's sensible. And then if you think talking about like uh yeah, giving control and cated like lattice structures or stuff, why is that important? I mean, you're talking a little bit about that. Uh, you know, what can you really do as a designer or at the design stage with lattices to to really change an object?
Speaker 2:Well, um if, for example, if you're gonna print uh a photorepathesis in powder bed fusion or some liquid resin printers, what we can do with within our software is to fill the inner space with a unit cell and then gradually using a brush to change the strut diameter of that unit cell in different places. So effectively using one material but getting multiple properties.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I think that's really exciting because that could already give you that gradient. You could create a cushion zone somewhere, you could create a different thing under my toe and then a softer area around, right? Are you seeing a lot of experimentation with that, or is it very early days for people to be working with that?
Speaker 2:Well, we did see, but then FTM took over photorecthosis for 3D printing. I think it is too expensive to use powder bed fusion, that's what I call, to print photoreas when you can do it with TPU on a printer like the bamboo lab or super inexpensively. Inexpensively. Is that the word?
Speaker 5:Yeah, well low-cost printers are inexpensive. Okay, okay. I think I think that's an interesting perspective. I think, and if you looked at also like, you know, if you printed like a hundreds a time and stuff like that, it just it just generally just the material costs, the process costs just make it really inexpensive uh uh expensive for this one part, right?
Speaker 2:I think I mean we could never get up to the volume. It was always a catch 22 for us because we go to these service bureaus and they say, well, we can get the price down for you if if you order 60 parts or whatever, but we could never get the 60 parts from our customers.
Speaker 4:I think that's an interesting insight there too. And would you I mean you don't have to answer this if you don't want to, would you say that sometimes, and I'll just speak for orthodists and prosodists, sometimes we get a little bit too into what works or what doesn't work, and we we may overcomplicate the process, specifically around foot orthoses. I'm not saying alignment's not important. But I'm like, okay, like multiple barometer over, you know, 10 centimeters, is that really gonna make or not 10 centimeters, 10 millimeters, is that really gonna make a big difference for the normal type of thing? We're not talking about diabetic care, wound care, that sort of thing. Would you say that in some ways having additive manufacturing and the tools available now that are that weren't necessarily available in the traditional fab potentially could cause like an analysis, paralysis sort of thing where you actually overthink the product that you're making?
Speaker 2:Just being able to control the inside of an orthotic insole, like very specifically, is so cool. But as you say, do you need that? And could you compare if if if you have to pay 60 bucks for a pair, whereas doing almost the same on an FTM printer where the material cost is less than 10 bucks? I would say the FTM is good enough, and there are ways to get that variable density gradual using FTM as well. I'm not sure. It's it's so easy to just get amazed by what you can do and forget that someone wants to pay for this rather inexpensively.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I thought I think even specifically with orthosis and foot stuff, I think that that the material extrusion has the advantage because we can encapsulate within the TPU, we can encapsulate chambers of air, right? We can't do this with SA or vap polarization, we can't do this with the the powder effusion processes. So encapsulating air and creating a bit of air around your toe, right, or where your toe used to be or whatever, there's something that we can do that custom for you in a particular air chamber, for you, depending on your weight or whatever. And that's something I think I hope more people pay attention to that, because it's something that is is huge, I think. And then, yeah, just like you described, we can just change the lattices. We can change the lattices at every layer, we could change the lattices um and the honeycomb structure and the wall thickness and the shapes, and we could change different infill structures, which people don't really do. Uh, and then of course you can also get fill these chambers more or less with a different material or with the same material. And then you can get like something that is like I think even much more gradient than you can get with another uh process. So I I do think in the long run, even if if it you know the cost advantage, I love that, but just process wise, I believe more in material extrusion than I do in the other processes for all the foot-related stuff.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I think I agree with you on that.
Speaker 5:And and how is it like for you to to to to look forward? I mean, are are you um are you looking at like, you know, we're gonna expand hundreds of 3D printers or we're gonna look at post-processing, or where where do you think your value is? Because we're talking before, uh, in the software, in the settings, you know, you can have more machines than anyone else, you can have better material. Where do you think you're gonna, if you're gonna win or if you're gonna outperform other people, where do you think it uh the real area is to outperform?
Speaker 2:It is possible now if the central fabrication won't be as um applicable, if the machines don't take cost anything and the space they take up is nearly none. What's the reason for having those machines in one place producing centrally and then shipping? You could have them closer to the actual patient. So so perhaps the frictionless system is the way to expand the business, if that makes sense.
Speaker 5:Yeah, it's totally makes sense. I I think ultimately I think I think that we could be going there, but there's still a bunch of things to be solved. I think. Like how are you doing on reliability repeatability? For example, if you print these things out on Monday and Tuesday, are you getting the same results? Are you getting that kind of consistency?
Speaker 2:Well, that's something we're about to hard test. So I couldn't give you again, not a lot of our production is CD printed at the moment, but yes, there needs to be some hard tests on on repeatability.
Speaker 5:And uh apart from other uh are there other technologies you're also looking at where you're like, oh, laser cutting could be cool, or generally other digital technology? If you believe in that whole idea, like hey, the C fab is going to disappear and people are gonna be No, I did uh well I posed the question.
Speaker 2:I don't think it will disappear, but it might sometimes be for some devices useful to have it closer to the patient. I wouldn't I wouldn't bet my life on the fact that C fabs fine. But I I could see I could see the winners come going there and providing the systems that allows for that rather than the ones or or having the flexibility to do both might be uh a way.
Speaker 4:What do you think the like if you're working with podiatrists or O and P, what are they looking for? Are they looking to save costs and bring it in-house via software and maybe some of the stuff that you're making? Or are they looking to say, we don't really want to make any capital expenditures, we want to use a contract manufacturer that just makes it easy for us?
Speaker 2:Well, in the market where we provide the actual devices, it seems to be moving towards cost, cost, cost. Because it's the reimbursement system is not allowing for a lot of margins on these well. Here's where 3D printing could be the uh the way to cut cost because you you don't have to pay for shipping if you have it in-house. Um you can get it's easier to get a finished product uh right down to to put it in in the shoe with it with 3D printing, I would say. Which cuts time in the grinding room for the practitioner. So in the market that I'm in, it's all uh a lot about cost and efficiency and workforce for the practitioners.
Speaker 4:Are people looking to bring it in-house or are they looking for contract manufacturers? I think I think both.
Speaker 2:I mean where it where it uh think it gives them an advantage isn't in delivery time that I think they want to go in-house, and if it if it's possible for them to save a buck, in-house will also be preferable. But that's not what we see in my market now. Now there are a couple of big producers centrally, but perhaps with 3D printing we can move. I mean, you have to also realize that it just the shipping alone is a big disadvantage to having a central flat in terms of um the environment.
Speaker 4:And it just adds time, right? So do you see a world in where uh a number of people, if the cost is is negligible, say to uh do FDM on at their office, they do that internally just to avoid some of that and have a quicker turnaround time, or does does that even really matter?
Speaker 2:I think that's where where we're moving towards. Okay.
Speaker 4:So it sounds like like the stuff that you're really working on is how do you get people to that point of that process where ultimately they save the most money by taking control of their own production. What do you guys think?
Speaker 2:But yeah, I I I would see that's probably where it's moving towards.
Speaker 4:Curious for yours from your perspective, because I know you've been involved with some of these foot orthosis things.
Speaker 5:Yeah. It depends. I mean, I think I think still the I don't know, let's let's just well, we can talk a little really specific, but really broad trends focusing on the orthosis thing. We're seeing people come up with solutions like materialized tried this, a bunch of other companies tried this, and they usually relied on powder by fusion, which Frederick already knows. Yeah, they he figured that out already before all these giant companies, that's just a non-starter. But I think there's a huge opportunity for someone to come up with an integrated kind of solution material, material printer, scanner with the whole thing, right? I know Podo Printer, other people are trying to do this. Um, and if somebody could do this around like a desktop type of system, uh, I think that could be a really very valuable uh kind of thing. If they just like completely automated the process, you could put it in any kind of office, and it would just be a really cheap way to be able to make money, like kind of like a vending machine, like a coke machine for orthoses. That's a big opportunity. What Brent and I have discussed a couple times as well is there's a bigger opportunity out there as well, right? There's orthoses for, well, well, think about talking to a company like UPS or the US Army or the NYPD, right? And say, hey, you've got a bunch of people, hundreds of thousands of people walking around on their feet. We could scan all your feet and give them uh better uh insoles and things. So that's a big, and then there's a bigger opportunity, maybe which we don't really think is gonna happen, but to give a bunch of people who are running or who are getting back pain or something, and orthosis in like a retail type environment, or along or a better fitting soul along with their next pair of Nikes. So that there's like a kind of like there's I think there's a chance that at one point we're gonna get somebody who takes his vending concept to the next level and just does it. And that's gonna make then it's gonna open the floodgates. Up until then, I think there's a really huge uh opportunity for services to take this on really quickly. And but I do agree. And and if you would have asked me, I think last year I would have said, yeah, the printing FDM or material extrusion, sorry, uh at TPU is too annoying, the repeatability is low, we're getting too many errors, it's too finicky, it's not gonna work for most people because it isn't fire and forget. And and I think it's like that's why I'm I'm kind of enthused by Frederick wanting to test this out and kind of going in that place where, oh, it is kind of reliable, and it is kind of, we have dialed it in to the point where it kind of works most of the time, where it works a lot of the time. And that to me is the the real point. If we're getting to a point where you can give people a process where they can do this a lot of the time, it'll just pop out by itself without having to do anything, even if it fails and after then, oh, print it again uh every you know, once and every five or six times, then it then it's still gonna be okay. And that would just depend on that that that package of of the material and the the printer being better and better. And we're seeing bigger bamboo type printers, these more efficient, bigger systems. Of all the materials, they do well, they do TPU the worst. This is a bit of a problem. But I think with foaming, right, exactly like Frederick says, and some other developments, other kind of filled and and kind of uh chemically assisted materials, we're gonna really see a real difference. I was blown away by the color fab Zellerfeld shoes, for example, and just wearing them and playing around with them, they're incredible. And they are using a lot of that different hardnesses and different types of texturing and stuff. And that is is a really next step. So I think ultimately we're we're we're I think ultimately, I think the most logical thing is for everyone to have like kind of like a semi-autonomous system that just can do anything from, you know, that just does the whole process. Like we talked about before that Chinese company that was offering kind of you know the footbed scanner, the walking thing, everything, you know? And that to me is is kind of in an office, is uh the ultimate thing to go forwards of things. But then all you need to check, just put the stuff in the building. So you know exactly where you can do it. I think what they're doing is cool.
Speaker 4:That kind of stuff is really 3D printing nerd, but if you make the training work, and buy that stuff. That's okay. No idea. You know what I'm saying? Like it's like, okay, so it's like 200,000. But I think it's really more advanced proclamation.
Speaker 5:We did a similar question like that's two years ago.
Speaker 4:And we both look like they don't want to make and you know, a four to six week lead time on your shoes that you order, I just like for the American market, I just don't think it's gonna work. Because other than people that are into 3D printing, there's nobody waiting four to six weeks for a pair of shoes that cost more than a lot of things. Sure, sure, sure. Uh it's interim state.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I think so.
Speaker 4:I love the innovation. That's all I'm saying is, but it it's it's a hard, you know, it's hard sell. Now, what I love about what Fred's doing is he's pushing the envelope of the FDM side of things. You know, I love powderbed fusion. You know I love powderbed fusion. I run five different powderbed fusion machines, but to me, powderbed fusion does not make sense for foot orthoses. It's it's too long, it's too expensive, and you can get a lot of the same properties out of FDM, whether it's the TPU side of things or even some of the shell stuff. I mean, some of the modified polypropylenes and even some of the nylons and such, if you want to go to more functional foot orthoses. So I think FDM's absolutely the way to go. And I love the the idea of being able to do this on a low-cost printer. I mean, we already work with a few clinicians where we're just doing the design side of things and we're sending stuff to their printers and uh both prosthetics, partial hand prostheses, arms, some test sockets. And I think that's the way it's gonna go. It saves, saves time, saves money on the shipping side of things. And then obviously it says it saves cost because they're taking the burden of the manufacturing and bringing it in. So I I think there's a lot to what Fred's building, and and I I do like that.
Speaker 5:That's cool. And then Fred, how about that? How about uh this whole idea of outsourcing design? Because we keep talking about that as well. You know, how about people like, you know, maybe I print in my house or in my office, but but I outsource the design to India or or a different company. Do you see that happening as well, or do you think people want to have that control?
Speaker 2:No, I uh I know that it's we are running that project today. So we're controlling a couple of printers that we set up in a different country. All they do is scan the foot, and we do everything else from the sign to slice to even starting the machine remotely.
Speaker 5:So yes. That to me is like super exciting. That's what I was talking about with that coke machine, right? Where it's just like literally like you you get a little message on your phone, like a WhatsApp or whatever, like, hey, change the filament.
Speaker 2:Yes, that's what happens. Actually, I just did. I just said to the guy, one guy, you have to switch the filaments. And he's like, Well, I'll do it tomorrow. So but you need systems for this to scale, yeah, because I cannot sit on WhatsApp with with uh that.
Speaker 5:And and what are the the the findings of the people you're working with? Are they really happy with this? Or are they a little bit weirded out that there's just they don't have any they don't have any say over it, or they're just like, oh, it's easy money, or well what's the what's um what are they happy about?
Speaker 2:They're happy about the fact that they don't have to wait. I mean, these are small uh uh physio clinics that we're working with, and they you were used to waiting for about two weeks to get the device, and now they can get it within a couple of hours.
Speaker 5:And how what are you offering to them, or what are you selling to them? Are you telling them that you pay, do they pay for the printer or do they pay per design work, or do they just pay for the orthosis or what?
Speaker 2:They pay for the orthosis in that case. Okay, okay. So we charge them for the ecosystem around it so that their job is to to remove or fill fill on new uh filament and remove the build plate and insert an empty build plate. In that this is sort of like a pilot project whereby uh we charge per pair.
Speaker 5:That's really that I think to me is really exciting because I think that is kind of the future where you know if that's just a if if that if that just becomes a profit engine that just sits in a corner of your uh of your clinic and you don't have to, you know, maybe you change the film once a week or whatever, or you have to, you know, run a calibration thing or oil some rods of you know every couple weeks. And and and then and then the only thing it does is spit out money for you. I think that's that's very compelling, you know? And uh the and then maybe the beautiful thing is maybe if you if you had the financial wherewithal, you wouldn't even have to charge them up front for the printer. You would just say, oh, put it there and I get to make all your orthoses and charge you per orthoses, right?
Speaker 2:And that's what we're doing in this case. So they don't pay for the machine in that pilot project that we're running. So then it becomes for the practitioner fairly frictionless. But to scale that, you need systems, and someone has to build those systems.
Speaker 5:Yeah, totally. I think I think I think that's it, that could be but that could be a future, just at least for orthosis. I think that that to me looks like the future. Like for example, if the future of all the other stuff you guys are talking about, prosthetics and stuff, yeah, that to me is like a hundred times more complicated. I'm not saying that orthosis isn't hard to do or isn't important, uh, just there's like so many more variables. So I don't know. So for Freddie, and what what what's the main thing that you've learned with the through your 3D printing journey so far?
Speaker 2:Well, it's just these things that are cool that you want to do that you then realize there's no use just because it's cool. There it's not gonna help anyone, or there might there's not gonna be a market just because it's cool. So I've learned to to stay away from shoes. Because I don't think anyone would is gonna do buy a custom shoe with uh when there's nice fabric that hugs your uh upper, uh it's gonna be a hard sell to get on the other side of that.
Speaker 5:I I I think there's one thing that I would like to remind you of is patron tequila. Okay. And the first time you may not have from the first time somebody explained to me that there was a bowl of tequila out there that was $80 or something. I was like, what? And after people started buying, all these people started buying like $60, $70 tequila or something, I was like, I'm pretty sure we could sell people anything at this point, you know?
Speaker 2:Yeah, but maybe I'm wrong.
Speaker 5:Yeah, no. I don't know. I don't I I just don't know what like a uh you know a 16-year-old person now cares about and what they find important, you know? And I don't know how far we can get on the material side and side of things. So yeah, I don't know. But to us it's just like it's a really expensive croc. But there's a lot of people that want crows, right? Um, so so so I I don't I don't think we really know uh what we're gonna do there. But yeah, so Frederick, thank you so much for for for for being here today with us. Uh I think it's really great what you're doing and then uh really leading the charge on on uh material extrusion and and orthoses and a lot of the CAD stuff around it as well. And I love the outsourcing project as well. That sounds like it could be the future of the whole industry. So thanks so much for being on the show today. Thanks for having me. And Brent, thanks uh for you to you for being here as well today.
Speaker 4:Well, this was great, and it was uh great to hear kind of the progression of where we're going. And I think the the future is bright for the foot orthoses, even though it's becoming more of a commodity. I just really appreciate Fred's take on okay, so if that's the case, how do we help that process along and be a part of it and make it a frictionless process? So I thought that was really cool.
Speaker 5:All right, and thank you for listening to another episode of the Prostetics and Orthodox Podcast. Have a great day.
