The research (self) validation [1] talk about similar performances than an existing product.
However, it does not talk about bio compatibility of the material used, potential contamination during manufacturing process, what kind of disinfectants can be used on the product, what is the operating range in terms of pressure, temperature, humidity, etc
A proper medical device manufacturer is also supposed to have a complaint handling unit, to raise and analyze every adverse effect on the field, and report to regulatory bodies the worst hazardous case in a limited time frame, be able to do recall and so on.
So I believe that this coming from the Gaza strip is a real boon because you don't have any other choice, but it does not mean that you could translate that model everywhere in the world.
Edit :
it seems this is registered as a Class 1 medical device in Canada, so it is possible that all my previous point have been addressed (still I am not quite sure how you can validate only a design without the manufacturing/shipping part) I am working on a Class 3 device so it is possible I am more paranoid that I should be...
>> In Canada, it is produced by Glia as a Class I device. Glia holds a Medical Device Establishment License from Health Canada.
I am not sure how you could pass an audit if your documentation contains "Lorem Ipsum" [2]
[0] The homepage mentions medical Hardware, but this page https://docs.glia.org/ still talks about medical device
Yes, these devices are of a lower quality than devices with prices 10-100x higher, but they get the job done, which is what actually matters. Some new practices will have to be designed to properly decontam and maintenance them, and experimentation to figure out their tolerances, but there are many more medical practices in the world that need these devices than have them; the main issue is cost.
Working in hospital infection control, this was one of my first concerns as well.
In a lot of industries there’s a huge conflict of interest as the auditee is also the company paying the auditors.
If the auditee loses a certification / accreditation, that’s also a loss of business for the auditor.
A bunch of simple medical devices (Class I in the EU) are self-certified by manufacturers, and require no seal of approval before commercialization.
>For all devices except Class I, implement an ISO 13485:2016 under the Medical Device Single Audit Program (MDSAP) compliant quality management system, which includes the specific requirements of the CMDR. ISO 13485 certification, used to demonstrate compliance with European regulations, does not meet Canadian requirements. Updates to the existing procedures, or new procedures, must be implemented.
So it seems you don't need to implement post market surveillance for a class 1 device or having a complaint handling unit.
[0] https://www.emergobyul.com/resources/canada-process-chart
#1 cleanability - It is very hard to properly clean a 3d printed item and each print may be a little different than the others.
#2 Cost - For the same cost, I can buy a stethoscope on Aliexpress that is made from aluminum and pvc. For about $5 I can purchase an actual Littmann replica made from the same durable parts as the previously mentioned steth from Aliexpress. The same goes for all of the designed products they have.
#3 Durability - PETG and ABS are relatively durable, but they do not compare to aluminum in terms of strength. In emergent situations, I would not trust plastic for my gear. In the clinical setting, I can see the use case, but still like the term "buy once, cry once" when it comes to tools that will see lots of use.
Here's the kind of device I had in mind.. but maybe there are more immeadiatly useful types of machines to work on, I don't know:
https://www.cmecorp.com/welch-allyn-28600-tm286-auto-tymp.ht...
"Designed to make detection and documentation of middle ear pathologies fast and accurate."
Happy to hack on stuff if there's some people to work with.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
Happy to answer questions
I designed it in a ruby thing that translates things into openscad (crystalscad was the name, but I deprecated it for multiple reasons. There's jenncad in my github repository as its successor, but I didn't have the chance to get it anywhere to stable)
Other software I used were printrun and slic3r.
In reading their "field validation" blog po... err... "reports", it looks like they failed pretty badly. Seems irresponsible to be publishing a design they know is badly flawed.
[1] https://www.narescue.com/combat-application-tourniquet-c-a-t...
https://medium.com/@trklou/3d-printed-tourniquet-day-2-of-ga...
We have received ethics approval for a proper (unblinded) head-to-head multi-site RCT between our 3D printed version, our desktop-injected version and the premium brand, but it will take time for that data to shake out.
tarek : )
ed: awesome ideas, I hope to see tons more designs delivered.
For both, the components (of medical quality) are extremely cheap, but there aren't any clinically validated open source devices in the market. I think they're relative low-hanging fruits in biomedical engineering, and they have a lot of impact potential.
I really think open source medical devices are the future, I would love to see more biomedical engineers and doctors excited about this.
Does anyone know if there is a roadmap for their pulse oximeter/ECG? I would love to collaborate remotely.
It says that the "bell transmits low frequency sounds, while the diaphragm transmits higher frequency sounds". Is there an advantage of one type over the other, or are they used in different scenarios?
Funny article about the bell: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1790765/
That being said, heart related sounds are generally low-frequency while breathing/lung related sounds are broadband so they do contain a significant higher frequency part.