Podiatry Arena members do not see these ads

Ive been doing lots of reading about cad/cam devices and the process.

I can lots of benefits of being about to create the device in a small mill with none of the messy gips, drying time and be able to control the shape degrees of skive etc

My question is how far are we off from this being the norm for a single prac. Making 30 or more devices a month to scan ( I beleive cast scanning seems the best fit for the way I work) get the 3d module of the foot design the device and bang out the patient walks with the new device.

The problems that I can see or have read about is 3d scan quality, most of the mill machines seem to promote EVA which I don´t use much, cost and the use of newer techniques such as medial-laterial skive does not seem to be mentioned anywhere.

I don´t want to take the scan and send it off to a lab, but to still be incontrol of the process.

Is this still along way off from being a reality ?

Before I get sent to read the cad/cam thread I have more than once but I tend to get more confused when Simon and Joe start discussing the in´s and out´s of each scan system.

So fell free to talk down to someone who likes to turn stuff on and it works, if it doesn´t call someone to fit it.

__________________
Michael Weber

The most common thing about common sense is it´s not very common.

It could be a reality for you tomorrow. There are numerous scanners, CAD systems and CNC milling machines out there that would enable you to scan, design and mill. Comes down to how big your wallet is.

I do agree that there seems to be a gap in the market for people who want to do-it-themselves with the majority of labs at the moment holding the CAD and milling system. There are middle grounds too, for example: you could scan, send the scan to a lab and have them e-mail you the file for milling. I know what you are saying though, ultimately, I like to have control over the entire process.

__________________
Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition

My location

Speaking from the perspective of a supplier of such a cadcam system, 30 pair a month has a long payback on investment. As to the territorial rights when I install a client/server system, assumed is that many new clients will get installed and as the rule, not the exception, client/server sites produce at least 500 pairs per month. Practically speaking, 30 pairs is roughly 4 1/2 hours of machining time.

Medial/lateral skives aren't really new technology (2002), although a 3rd version should be done in the next week that follows almost exactly, Dr. Kirby's documented method. My own methods were those as shown to me by one lab in Canada, and as requested by another lab in Indiana. However, I happen to be in complete agreement with you when it comes to scanners. Many of the scanners out there are little more than smokey mirrors, or of such poor quality that the results are not useful.

OreTek is completely scalablę even in the client version. Many podiatrists will more than likely scan, look at the scan and transmiţ but they aren't limited to just that. Some of my client/server customers ask that the menu be simplified, but it's all unlocked on request on the client side. The real questioņ at least for my system, is how much is a client willing to learn?

The scanning system is only one part of what's necessary for a cad cam based system of producing orthoses. There also needs to be supporting software that will produce the preferred styles and types of device.

I have no intention of talking down to you on this topic. However, one obvious point needs to be made. Total control over a process should also imply the willingness to learn. Currently, the variables I use to define a foot orthotic, soft accomodative device, or cast positive, are currently at a count of 334 and growing. My most recent customer I am currently training seems to prefer EVA, but actually an EVA material of a considerably denser material. This likely will be treated differently, causing me to add a 4th material type. I learn from each person I work with and simply provide the tools for a customer to do their work, with the primary goal to be that of emulating the types and styles of devices they are already producing. This latest install is hardly a challenge, but I still have challenges to meet from prior installations, and an ever increasing demand for new things.

__________________
Joe Jared, owner
OsiruSoft Research and Engineering
joejared@oretek.com

Facebook

I´m one for learning and don´t mind asking lots of questions. But it appears that I´m a far way off from having my own computer design and manufactor setup here in Sweden. I currently make my own devices 1 because of I found it a great way to improve my skills, more control over the device shape etc and costs. To ship devices to other place in Europe would just make things much too expensive in Sweden as people are not used to paying for medical care.

The problem with making the device is lost time after work or lunch etc. Thats one of benefits I can see from this type of system. More time for other things and more specific device.

I´ll keep reading and looking hopefully as technology improve single pod set up will come onto the market.

__________________
Michael Weber

The most common thing about common sense is it´s not very common.

Try these guys:
http://www.ideas.be/IDEAS_event.aspx

__________________
Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition

My location

You might try attending one of the following tradeshows. There are a number of podiatric foot scanners and CAM milling systems on display at each one:

Medica, Dusseldorf Nov 19-22, 2009
ISPO / Ortho Technik, Leipzig May 2010

__________________
Arjen Sundman
President
Amfit Inc. (USA)

Simon;
is this the system that you use? Looks very interesting.
Bruce

__________________
Bruce E. Williams, D.P.M.
Breakthrough Podiatry

No, I use solidworks.
http://www.solidworks.com/
It's not a dedicated piece of software and takes a whole lot of learning, but if suddenly we discover foot orthoses should look like elephants I can create them in that form. I provided the link above for Michael as this company offers a relatively low-cost turnkey solution to what he is looking for.

__________________
Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition

My location

My company debuted a new surface forming technology for making thermoformable foot orthotics less than 1 year ago. It can be done in about 20 minutes and gives complete control to the operator. We have since made several improvements, including a stand alone scanner.

However, this technology is still limited still by the casting method you prefer. If you subscribe to the philisophy of a foam box casting (neutral or MASS), it works great and is very simple. If you use plaster casting, it requires more steps. It is still new technology, and I am the owner of the company, so be careful:)

If you are interested, you can see the system at: www.varifitorthotics.com

My intent by joining the forum is not to peddle my wares, but to learn more, so I appologize for the potential breach of ediquette.

I had a look at the website lots of bells and fancy bits but not much info with nuts and bolts. I requested some more info see what it comes thru with.

Do the mill machines produce skive devices ? There was not one picture of end products.

__________________
Michael Weber

The most common thing about common sense is it´s not very common.

BMJ, Can you elaborate on this from your website: "Categorization of foot in terms of arch height and foot flexibility under load". How are you measuring load/ deformation of the foot?

__________________
Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition

My location

Michael

My advice would not to worry to much about the milling - dirty and expensive job that can give more headaches than cures - and concentrate on the scanning and design technology.
If you can capture a good 3D image of the foot, then the job starts to become possible using either a generic CAD system such as Solidworks or via a design package such as Delcam's Orthomodel (Getting closer by the day to be being an good system).
No pre-made system will give you everything you want but will do 80%+ of designs but you do get frustrated sometimes. The main advantage being speed and ease of use.
If you follow Simon's approach and to some extent my own, then learning a CAD package is all about time but the rewards are better - you get almost full control.
I would then suggest sending the designed insoles to a third party for milling - all they will do is mill it and return you an exact model for you to finish.
If you do want to mill your own then you can buy a system for approx £15K that will do poly's and EVA's.

It will save you time in the long run but be prepared to put the effort in.

Hope this helps

Phil

thanks Phil.

I think I need to sit down with someone who runs these systems play around with them etc. Just a little hard over here as Podiatry idea´s etc is only 3 years old in Sweden. I might have to make a trip to England to see a few systems working before I dive in with $ and from the sounds of things the big time investment.

__________________
Michael Weber

The most common thing about common sense is it´s not very common.

For most practitioners, this is pretty much accurate. Volume from a single practitioner rarely warrants the cost of a machining workstation. Group a cluster of clinics together and that changes. The majority of client systems using my scanner simply use it to replace conventional shipping of casts to laboratories but aren't restricted to just that, as it comes with a complete system. For my own business model I see the scanner and system itself as a tool to encourage loyalty to a given manufacturing lab.


Based on your country's conversion, a complete system shipped to my newest customer including shipping will be in the £12k range, including the scanning system. Probably the best bad decision I made this year was to add compatibility to the Techno-ISEL line of routers as it eliminated the need to travel to a customer site for a turn-key installation, with the machining workstation designed specifically for orthotics, no G codes.

__________________
Joe Jared, owner
OsiruSoft Research and Engineering
joejared@oretek.com

Facebook

If you watch the video, you will realise that they are not milling, they appear to be using a contact digitizer then "reversing the deformation of the pins" to create a positive model. The software presumably then directs the hardware to move some of the pins in the positive model for the "corrections". After this an orthosis "blank" is thermoformed over the pin model. Interesting approach and quick. I guess the resolution of the pins is going to be significant. What it can and can't do comes mainly down to the software. If I was working on a project like this I'd ensure that the software could deal with as many prescription /design variations as possible. I don't know who they have on board from the profession as an advisor or BMJ's background, so some of the things you or I consider as commonly performed prescription variables may or may not be possible. It is a quick way of doing it but obviously this is only producing a shell, if you wanted to put any extrinsic posting onto the device this would presumably have to be done separately from the automated system? Also, if you were making more compliant devices (what Kevin calls shank dependent) these kind of devices will need post-production grinding (posting) to their inferior surfaces too. All the more reason to include methods of intrinsic rearfoot posting, i.e. medial / lateral heel skives in my book. But extrinsic posts also change the load /deformation characteristics of the devices. Using this system you couldn't create what I call "smart shells" of varying thickness across their surfaces to manipulate the load/deformation characteristics as you can with milling or "growing".

I still think it looks like a novel approach though which for many practitioners would be sophisticated enough to meet their needs. It's kind of like across between Amfit and the old heat and mould to the foot approach, but using a corrected weightbearing cast rather than forming it straight onto the foot. Personally, I prefer non-weightbearing capture. But I know Robeer likes that kind of thing. I guess you could do a non-weightbearing plaster of Paris cast, pour a positive and digitize the positive using this system, but it kind of defeats the object of this system which is primarily to replace the plaster phase of production. Alternatively you could use a "dolly-trolly" to bring the casting box up to the foot and create semi-weightbearing models.

Of course this is just my opinion, I've never seen the system in operation and I'm just putting 2+2 together from the information on the website. I could be completely wrong.

I am interested in the claim from the website regarding arch height and foot deformation due to current research interests so if you could get back to me on that BMJ either here or as a private message, that would be great.

__________________
Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition

My location

Phil, I took a look at the latest release of this recently via their website, it is improving in terms of functionality; is it improving in terms of cost? What will Orthomodel set me back these days?

__________________
Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition

My location

Got it now from the website, arch height in neutral versus arch height in relaxed stance, viz. arch (navicular) drop. Disappointed. The guys using contact digitizers in their systems are really missing a trick that could revolutionise orthosis prescription in my opinion

__________________
Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition

My location

Good Question: Since we just launched our site a few days ago, I appologize for any confusion. I suspect there will be a few more changes.
To answer your question: When you cast the patients foot into the casting matrix (pin mold), you can do so just like you would a foam box. Then the mold is placed in our scanner and digitized. Then the patient stands full weight onto the same mold in the same spot and this new image is digitized.
The mold is then re-set and the process is repeated for the other foot.
After this is done, the two images are juxtaposed over each other and key foot data is obtained...and charted. 1. Arch height 2. Arch flexibilty (calculation of the arch drop / arch height (neutral) This is then compared to population norms.
The load is simply the person standing full weight bearding on the device. The calcuation for arch height and arch drop is coming from the images and is a volumetric standardization for each foot size, so that comparisons are useful.
We are finding that to our surprize, many people have an imbalance in arch height and flexibility from foot to foot, and there is some anecdotal coorelation between that and knee and back pain.

[quote=Simon Spooner;119345]If you watch the video, you will realise that they are not milling, they appear to be using a contact digitizer then "reversing the deformation of the pins" to create a positive model. ]

This is correct. The 3D positive of the foot forms on a bed of pins which we thermoform over. The positive that is formed is done with a CNC robot, and any corrections you have, can be formed into the positive. The feedback so far is that our system has most of the elements doctors need (met pad, intrinsic posts (skives) arch height control etc, but I am sure that our journey is just beginning.

We are looking for industry leaders to help us trial and confirm or disprove any coorelations , and are looking for help to coorelate orthotic design to foot type.

__________________
Brent Johnson
Owner- Varifit Orthotics
www.varifitorthotics.com
e-mail: brentj@xmission.com
Professional Training: MS Engineering (ME, CE)

I guess there is no change of explaining that more is there ? Or is there a spooner pat pending ?

I must admit I did not look closly at the video on BMJ website but there was arequest for more info which I put it so will look again closer in the future, but the Delcam system really grabbed my attention so might have to go to Birmingham(?) and check it all out.

__________________
Michael Weber

The most common thing about common sense is it´s not very common.

I don't think he's being too complicated about it. In my samples folder are 4 images my newest customer and I took during training to show the results of corrections, before and after. The axial rotation about the longitudinal axis is more visible in images 1069 (corrected) and 1070 is considerably more obvious than 1071 (corrected) and 1072. Hope this helps. For the proximal view, the line on the right foot is actually off a bit but the left foot comparison is pretty useful. The images are all high resolution and will take some time to load but considerable effort was made to make it easy to flip between the pairs of images for comparison. I believe Simon is referring to the area of the first two images in the gap area between the two lines as a point of reference.

__________________
Joe Jared, owner
OsiruSoft Research and Engineering
joejared@oretek.com

Facebook

Simon

Not quite sure but no where as expensive as the full suite we use.
The really good stuff is the development work they are putting in to automating the manufacture of TCI's - the really messed up feet. Looks very promising.

Phil

Does anyone use the heel rotation option from either their lab or on their own software?

I.e. Rotate the mold in the frontal plane in the proximal 1/3 of the scan.

How do you think it compares to orther forms of rearfoot control? (Blake inverted, skives or just a plain rearfoot wedge)

We use this method as one of our prescription variables. It is also useful for adding a more progressive rearfoot post to EVA devices i.e. the rearfoot post does not end abruptly but feathers in the device.
It can also be used to align the orthoses cup to reduce irritation.

I don't think it can be compared to the other methods as they all add something different to the mechanical make up of the insole - personally I use a bit of everything.
I am currently doing Blakes on the CAD system and find that there are similarities between these 2 methods.

Phil

Simon

Delcam is a minimum £50K with scanner and mill

I have found overall trying to discuss cad-cam is difficult - the main designers and users are the commercial labs. Talking to them about systems that are clinic based is bit like talking to turkeys about christmas!



L

Lawrence

I have got to disagree - from my perspective anyway!
The biggest issue we have at our lab is that the practitioner does not have enough control over the design of the orthotic resulting in error= returns= cost to us.
If practitioners were able to design there own orthoses, seeing it in real time, then were able to send it to the lab for milling only, then it would be a winning combination for us and the practitioner.
The customer gets charged less for the product and uses the labs milling expertise and where needed, the finishing skills of the technicians. The down side being for the practitioner that they can't blame a third party for getting it wrong.

I think this will be the way forward for a small group of practitioners who have the willingness and aptitude to take over full control over the design of their orthoses.

It then becomes a purely financial decision.

Phil

Hi Phil

Glad you disagree!
So is the mechanism of scanning, prescribing, designing and forwarding for milling possible?

L

Lawrence.

The delcam system in full can be purchased a lot cheaper than 50k.

You could look at selecting a cheaper CNC router, this will significantly reduce the cost.

Scott

Scott

I was replying to Simon and I know he has done some Cad work and probably needs a mill of a certain scale.

From memory the software is the most significant part of the cost with Delcam with the mill coming in at 15K. However what price are you talking?

L

Lawerence,

I have priced 3 different systems and for cast/foam box scanner, cad software,mill software and cnc router I was looking more in the region of 32k. This is with a cnc router with a suitably large enough surface area/envelope to mill 6 pairs per run.

At 50 k you'd probably expect a large cnc milling machine, fast and fancy but for the purpose of milling orthoses or wooden positives not necessary when on a tight budget.

Selection will depend on the volume of orthoses that you plan to produce, the materials you plan to machine,(wooden positives or direct milled polypro) and ultimately your budget.

All the best

Scott

Lets see, here’s what I reckon you could do it for if you were willing to take the time to learn and build:
Scanner: David scanner software http://shop.david-vision-systems.de/...hp/language/en £204.73

+ Hardware lets say £250 in total.

Alternatively you could go for the free version of David and just buy hardware then import into Meshlab software- free http://meshlab.sourceforge.net/

Cad/ Cam software- free for e.g. http://www.freebyte.com/cad/cadcam.htm
Art of illusion http://www.artofillusion.org/ etc

Milling machine- well you can find plenty of make it plans on the net, lets say £500 as liberal estimate for the parts.

Personally, I see the future in 3d printing and hence have been heavily influenced by the reprap project (google it) I think it is possible to create a manufacturing system for less than a grand and there lies the challenge that I've set for myself for you people. A complete manufacturing package for less than £1000 uk. Can it be done? If it can, you'll be the first to know.

In my spare time(!) I'm trying to perfect this project so that Johnny shamopodist can do this for themselves.
"Peel me off the cross
We don't need another saviour" -Radio ass kiss: the stuffies

__________________
Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition

My location