Upload
phamnguyet
View
222
Download
6
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
April 2014 | ManufacturingEngineeringMedia.com 89
Additive manufacturing is now
producing all manner of medical
devices, and new ideas for the
process—ranging from printed
surgical tools and bone replace-
ments to human tissue—are
coming from designers and engineers daily.
Even the best idea, though, has little value in the
United States unless the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration gives its go-ahead for putting the device on
the market.
A Pathway to Approval for Additive-Made DevicesDevices made with additive manufacturing techniques often replace a similar, or predicate, device made in a different manner
Ilene WolffContributing Editor
Additive Manufacturing
Photo courtesy Jake Evill (3D Exoskeleton)
Jake Evill’s Cortex is a recyclable plastic exoskeleton that
would replace a fiberglass or plaster cast for a broken limb.
April 2014 f3 Additive.indd 89 3/21/14 10:39 AM
Because many new devices made with additive manufac-
turing techniques are, essentially, replacing similar devices
simply made with different manufacturing techniques, there is
often an easier “predicate” device pathway to federal regula-
tory approval.
This article examines three medical devices manufactured
with 3D technology, one of which obtained government ap-
proval in 2013: The OsteoFab Patient-Specifi c Cranial Device.
Scott DeFelice, president and CEO of Oxford Performance Ma-
terials (South Windsor, CT), which manufactures the device,
shares his experience working with the FDA.
“Essentially, say, ‘Here’s my device,and here’s a predicate device. Mydevice has the same intended useand it shares the same technical
characteristics as this previous device.’ ”
OsteoFab is Oxford’s brand name for polyethylene ketone
ketone, or PEKK.
We also look at two other, as-yet unapproved devices. One
is less intrusive than the OsteoFab skull patch, and would be
worn as an exoskeleton on the outside of the body to immo-
bilize and support a broken limb. The other is more intrusive,
and would create a prosthesis for a missing nose or ear from
a bioresorbable scaffold and a person’s own stem cells. Two
experts weigh in on what the FDA may require before approv-
ing these devices.
Patching the Skull
Oxford Performance Medical made headlines in early
2013 when its patient-specifi c cranial device, or skull prosthe-
sis, became the fi rst FDA-cleared, 3D-manufactured polymer
implant. The company produces the one-off devices that are
custom fi t for individual patients using PEKK-based OsteoFab,
its own product, and an EOSINT P 800 laser sintering 3D
printer in a computer-aided design process.
DeFelice said Oxford has made the skull prostheses for
more than 200 people in the year since gaining government
clearance to market the device. The devices are shipped within
fi ve days of receiving an order to locations in Europe, the Mid-
dle East and South America, in addition to the United States.
Oxford was due to break into the Japanese market in January.
www.zagar.com
(216) 731-0500
For 75 years, Zagar has been supporting American manufacturing with quality and innovation. Our complete holemaking solutions simplify operations and increase productivity.
IMPROVING AMERICAN PRODUCTIVITYRODU
75YEARS
Multi Spindle Drill & Tap Feed Units
CNC Tool-Changer Heads Slant-Bed Tapper
MASS PRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATION OF HOLES
Zagar Holemaking Solutions
90 ManufacturingEngineeringMedia.com | April 2014
Additive Manufacturing
April 2014 f3 Additive.indd 90 3/21/14 10:39 AM
“We do them every week now,” he said of the devices.
Oxford obtained clearance to market the device within the
FDA’s self-imposed time frame of 90 days, he said, because
the government agency already had extensive data on the
biocompatibility and purity of the proprietary raw material,
OsteoFab; all processes were developed internally; and the
company controls the entire supply chain.
“In our cranial device, where things got complicated is that
we do patient-specific devices,” said DeFelice.
He explained that the FDA already had addressed the
patient-specific issue with metal skull prostheses, so the agen-
cy knew what to look for and that moved the process along.
“What it basically means at the end of the day is the FDA
will evaluate your ability to design and produce your product,”
he said.
Oxford had already done about 30 skull prostheses outside
of the United States before submitting its request for clear-
ance to the FDA. DeFelice declined to go into detail regarding
clinical trials.
His company recently submitted for approval a mid-face
implant (for the bone around the eye and cheek) A device for
spine fusion is in the works.
“So, it’s a very broad platform [for OsteoFab],” he said.
Going Independent
While DeFelice has in-house advisers to help with the
regulatory process, not everyone is so fortunate. For them,
there are independent consultants, some of whom previously
worked for the FDA.
One such consultant is Dennis Moore, of The FDA Group
(Westborough, MA), who has 30 years’ experience with the
government agency, both as an employee and an adviser.
“One thing that people should keep in mind is that it’s not
a very well-defined process,” he said. “Nothing is absolute.
I’ve seen exceptions to every rule.”
That said, Moore offers his three-step process for FDA
510(k) clearance (for Class II devices) or pre-market approval
(for Class III devices).
His step No. 1 is to determine what already-approved
item—a predicate device—most resembles your bright idea.
“And that’s not always an easy task,” Moore said.
The goal is to closely define what your device is by its
intended use.
“A toothpick becomes a device when you say it removes
plaque,” Moore explained. “A cotton swab may be a cosmetic
product until it’s used to clean a wound bed.
“The whole game is to ramp down your claim so you can
get clearance.”
Attorney James Lawrence, of the Coats & Bennett law firm
in the Research Triangle Park area of North Carolina, said of
the predicate device process: “Essentially, say, 'Here’s my
device, and here’s a predicate device.
“My device has the same intended use and it shares the
same technical characteristics as this previous device.’ ”
Lawrence, who has an undergraduate biomedical engineer-
ing degree in addition to his law degree, interned at the FDA.
He offers an insider tip about the predicate device process.
“FDA reviewers are wary of ‘predicate creep,’ where sub-
missions veer further and further away from something that’s
been approved,” Lawrence said.
Moore recommends making a blind call to the FDA’s Divi-
sion of Small Manufacturers Assistance line (1-800-638-2041
or 301-796-7100) and saying, “We’ve got this widget, what
do you think?” Or, for a few thousand dollars, you can send in
Bore, Groove, Face Groove,
Profile, or Thread.
Machine most Ferrous and
Non-Ferrous Materials.
Unique 3 Point Locking
System...Engineered for
Maximum Tool Rigidity
and Centerline Repeatability
from...Tool to Tool!
“ “
FEATURING A “UNIQUE” QUICK-CHANGE TOOLING SYSTEM
...MICRO-QUIK...
Locating/Locking
Screw
Locating/Stop
Pin (fixed)
Locating/Locking
Screw
Locating/Stop
Pin (fixed)
MICRO 100 Tool Corporation
1410 E. Pine Ave. Meridian, ID 83642
www.micro100.com800-421-8065 208-888-7310
N
E
W
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
S
Reduce Machine Setup, Tooling Costs & Downtime while Boosting Productivity!
super carbide tools
O
OO
®
MADE IN THE
USA
PROUDLY
CI
R
INTERNATIONALLY
ACCLAIMED
QUALITY Through Manufacturing Excellence!
cro
®
kIu
Q
i
QUICK CHANGE TOOLING
92 ManufacturingEngineeringMedia.com | April 2014
Additive Manufacturing
April 2014 f3 Additive.indd 92 3/21/14 10:39 AM
your device and the FDA will tell you where its staff thinks it fi ts. The process takes
30–60 days, Moore said.
It can pay off to match your invention to a predicate device carefully, he warns.
“If approached correctly and you can tone down the claim enough you can
sometimes avoid a clinical trial,” said Moore. Clinical trials typically require a mini-
mum of 50 patients, and each patient’s costs can tally $10,000 or more, he said.
Some makers get a toehold in foreign markets, where regulatory hurdles are
lower, before trying to get their device approved in the United States. This offers the
advantage of having patient usage data that can be included in an FDA submission.
“In some cases you can leverage that to a degree,” said Moore.
Lawrence is more optimistic.
“You can rely on data from trials that were conducted outside the US,” said
Lawrence. “You just have to make sure it complies with the laws in the country
of origin.”
Protect High Value Parts
Buy online today. www.birchwoodtechnologies.com
Smart option for in-house black oxide on iron and steel components. Nothing like it. Safe, simple, 30 minute TRU TEMP® process operates at 200oF and contains no pollutants. Non-dimensional finish is RoHS and Mil spec compliant. Ideal choice for Job Shops or OEM manufacturers whose customers need quick delivery of high quality finished components at low cost. Comprehensive Factory training and on going tech support to keep you finishing in the black. Call us today: 952-937-7931.
TRU TEMP® 30 minute process.
TECHNOLOGIES
®
Outlines Editable
#6505 Birchwood Technologies ad MFG Eng one third.indd 11/13/14 4:56 PM
April 2014 | ManufacturingEngineeringMedia.com 93
Oxford Performance Medical’s patient-specifi c cranial device, or skull prosthesis,
became the fi rst FDA-cleared, 3D-manufactured polymer implant.
Pho
to c
ourt
esy
Oxf
ord
Per
form
ance
Med
ical
April 2014 f3 Additive.indd 93 3/21/14 10:39 AM
After figuring out what your predicate device is, Moore said
the next hurdle is to strategize the steps you need to take, and
itemize your costs. A white board and sticky notes—one for
each step—come in handy.
“You don’t want to get hit with an unexpected electrical
safety test that can cost $100,000,” he warned.
Moore’s Step No. 3 is to file a submission with the FDA
and answer any objections brought up by its reviewers. The
clock on the government’s 90-day timeframe stops ticking
while the applicant works on his answers.
The Emergo Group Inc., global consultants for medical
devices, got scientific about how long it takes the FDA to com-
plete the 510(k) process and has done periodic analyses.
“On average, it takes five months for the FDA to review
and clear a medical device 510(k) application,” wrote Scott
Schorre, vice president of global marketing for Emergo in
his 2014 analysis of 24,000 applications cleared from 2006
through 2013. “About two-thirds of all 510(k) submissions are
cleared within six months.”
Moore offers a warning.
“The FDA loves to get you wrapped in pre-submission
meetings, and there’s no timer on those,” he said. “Pre-
submission meetings are not required. If you feel you have
enough data to file a submission, then go ahead.”
Lawrence offers tips on what goes into that submission.
“The agency wants to see that in the history of designing
and trying to get your device on the market that you’ve gone
through a rigorous design process,” he said. “You have to
prove you have internal controls so designs are vetted and
peer-reviewed, tested and validated.”
Keep track of all changes to the device’s design, he said.
“At the end of the day your design history file will show the
evaluation of the designs from the beginning to the end,” said
Lawrence. “It’s not something foreign to the way engineering
is typically done.”
It’s always better to do your homework before submitting,
even going so far as to talk with the people who will be review-
ing your device.
You can even go one step further hire an FDA-authorized
third-party reviewer who can expedite the process for a price,
said Emergo’s Schorre, but the FDA still has final say-so.
“Do the math to see if it makes sense for your situation,”
he said.
What to do if the FDA rejects your submission?
“You can challenge those determinations by the FDA and
companies have tried to do that,” said Lawrence. “You can
appeal up the agency’s chain of command, and as a last
resort argue [in court] that the FDA made an arbitrary and
capricious decision.
“[But] courts are typically
very deferential to the scientific
expertise of federal agencies.”
Helping Bones Mend
Like DeFelice, Jake Evill also
has an idea for bone problems.
But his device would support,
rather than replace, bone that’s
been damaged. Its Cortex, an
exoskeleton made of recyclable
plastic that would replace plaster
or fiberglass casts. Plaster is
heavy, and both it and fiber-
glass are not water-resistant or
recyclable. Casts made of plaster
and fiberglass and are itchy and
smelly as well.
Cortex looks like a custom-fitted plastic web that fits over
an arm or leg: the device is more solid and less “webby” at
the site of the break to provide extra support. It opens like a
book, and snaps closed for one-time patient use. Once the
break is healed, Cortex can be tossed in the recycling bin.
94 ManufacturingEngineeringMedia.com | April 2014
Additive Manufacturing
The Emergo Group Inc. analyzed 24,000 510(k) applications cleared by the FDA from
2006 through 2013.
Cou
rtes
y Th
e Em
ergo
Gro
up
April 2014 f3 Additive.indd 94 3/21/14 10:39 AM
“The Cortex exoskeletal cast provides a highly technical
and trauma zone localized support system that is fully ven-
tilated, super light, shower friendly, hygienic, recyclable and
stylish,” Evill wrote on his website.
To make Cortex, a patient would be X-rayed and 3D
scanned. Then computer-aided design would calculate the
device’s pattern for support in the area of the bone break, and
an algorithm would be used to 3D print the device.
Evill was an industrial design student in New Zealand
when he created Cortex. The James Dyson Foundation, estab-
lished by the creator of the Dyson vacuum cleaner, thought so
highly of Evill’s idea that it named him runner-up in its 2013
design engineering competition.
Attorney Lawrence said of Evill’s device: “That being out-
side the body it’s more akin to an arm sling or an orthopedic
brace. I have a hard time believing it wouldn’t be similar to a
predicate device.”
2-in-1 Devices
DeFelice and Evill aren’t the only ones making news with
their devices.
Two years ago, Dr. Scott Hollister, professor of biomedical
and mechanical engineering and associate professor of sur-
gery at the University of Michigan, used 3D printing to make a
life-saving device for a baby.
“FDA reviewers are wary of ‘predicate creep,’ where submissions veer further and further
away from something that’s been approved.”
Kaiba Gionfriddo, a 3-year-old from Ohio, passed the
two-year survival mark in February after receiving an emer-
gency experimental splint to keep his trachea open. Kaiba has
severe tracheobronchomalacia, a rare condition that causes
the airway to routinely collapse.
To make the splint, doctors at U-M CT scanned the affected
area of Kaiba’s respiratory tract, and used the images to design
and print the tube-shaped splint to help keep the area open.
When a pediatric otolaryngologist implanted it, Kaiba’s lungs
immediately started moving on their own in the operating room.
Unlike the skull prosthesis or broken limb exoskeleton,
though, Kaiba’s splint is expected to dissolve in his body as
his airway naturally matures. That’s because it’s made of
polycaprolactone, or PCL.
CLAMPS. FIXTURING ACCESSORIES. MACHINE TOOL COMPONENTS.
Fixtureworks® is your source for Fairlane Products rest pads, grippers, Swivots® and quick release ball lock pins. Imao® clamps and set-up accessories; Kipp® handles, spring plungers, knobs and hand wheels; OK-Vise® clamps; Mitee-Bite® low-profile edge clamps; and Speedloc™ mounting systems from Modern Industries. Call us at 888.794.8687 for technical assistance and sales or go to www.fixtureworks.net for online ordering, specs & CAD files.
FXW-066A 3.375x4.875.indd 1 3/3/14 9:53 AM
96 ManufacturingEngineeringMedia.com | April 2014
Additive Manufacturing
April 2014 f3 Additive.indd 96 3/21/14 10:39 AM
Hollister explains that
it took him six mnths to
adapt PCL for use in his
EOS Formiga P 100 laser
sintering machine. Since
his success, he’s made
Kaiba’s splint as well as a
scaffold to regenerate bone
in the mandibule (jaw) for
an adult patient in 2013.
But there’s a twist in
the prosthesis for the adult
patient—a biologic growth
factor was adsorbed onto the PCL. The idea is that, as the
man’s own replacement bone grows, the PCL prosthesis will
dissolve, just like Kaiba’s splint.
So far in the United States, Hollister is using a PCL scaffold
seeded with stem cells and growth factor to grow replacement
ears and noses in pre-clinical research.
It’s possible to fashion a prosthesis from
a patient’s own bone and cartilage, but
often the soft tissue around the graft
breaks down. His idea would eliminate
another issue as well.
“You don’t need the surgeon to be
Michangelo in the operating room,”
said Hollister.
There are other issues still to be
resolved, but Hollister said the patient-
specific ears and noses would be clas-
sified two ways by the FDA: as a device
and as a biologic.
Attorney Lawrence predicts that as
scientists and clinicians make progress
in 3D biomedical engineering, the FDA
will increasingly encounter similar two-
in-one devices.
“This is a classic example,” he said.
“As far as regulation is concerned, it’s
probably [something] the Office of Com-
bined Products would look at.
“The question asked would be
what’s driving the overall therapeutic
effect? It’s something the agency deals
with fairly frequently.” ME
From planning to production
Successful companies know… For maximum pro t and manufacturing ef ciency, you need a fully optimized machining solution. Through speed, experience and process optimization, we signi cantly reduce your cost-per-piece, while maximizing pro ts and manufacturing capabilities.
CHIRON America, Inc.Phone: 800.425.0204Email: [email protected]
www.chironamerica.comHartford, CT • May 6th - 8th
The new CHIRON MillTurnThe fastest six-sided bar machining solution
Quality Machine Tools & Service
Booth 2043 • www.necnc.com
Visit us at Mfg4CHIRON America hosted by:
April 2014 | ManufacturingEngineeringMedia.com 97
EOS of North America Inc.Ph: 877-337-8257
Web site: www.eos.info/en
Want More Information?
The Emergo Group periodically publishes analyses of FDA 510(k) clearance data.
Cou
rtes
y Th
e Em
ergo
Gro
up
April 2014 f3 Additive.indd 97 3/21/14 10:39 AM