Episode #81 | From J&J to the Future: Sam Onukuri's 30-Year Adventure in 3D Printed Medical Devices - The Lattice (Official 3DHEALS Podcast)

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
In this episode, I had the pleasure to interview
Sam Onokori, a pioneering forcein the world of 3D printed
medical devices with over 30years of experience in R&D and
commercialization.
A trained material scientist,Sam has led transformative work
during his 30-year tenure atJohnson Johnson, where he
spearheaded 3D printingintegration across medical,

(00:24):
consumer and pharma sectors.
Today, he continues to push theboundaries of healthcare
innovation through variousadvisory and consulting roles.
Join me as we explore Sam'sextraordinary journey, the
future of personalized care andthe promise of additive
manufacturing in medicine.
Hi there, Hi Sam, Hi Jenny, howare you Good?

(00:47):
Thanks for taking time to talkto us Absolutely.
You're one of the few firstspeakers to test this podcast
out, so thank you very much forhaving faith in me.
But while I was doing researchto interview you, I realized
just how much you have done forthe industry and your name is

(01:10):
obviously very well known, and Imean not just in 3D printing
but also in my tech in general.
So you have spent 30 years atJ&J, which is a crazy amount of
time for a lot of people.
So I want to kind of organizethis interview into before J&J

(01:34):
and then the bulk of thisinterview.
We definitely want to digdeeper in what happened during
that journey, that fantasticjourney of yours, and then now,
which is post-J&J, which isequally exciting.
So why don't we start with thebefore-J&J story?

Speaker 2 (01:54):
Okay, okay, yeah, no, that's great.
I think J&J has been a big, bigpart of my life.
So you know, I think other thana little bit of you know
engineering work in GeneralElectric with appliances.
Most of my life has been inmedical devices and healthcare.

(02:15):
So, I started out in BaxterHealthcare in Chicago after my,
you know, graduation in thegraduate program.
A lot of it in the medicaldevices, laparoscopic products,
those days it was starting out,I think A lot of it was manual

(02:38):
assembly, a lot of CNC machiningand these are all the long
catheters and, you know,endocutters and things like that
.
So it was very inexpensivetimes when we, you know, when we
used to do things like that.
So, and then I spent time inquality bulk coverage and R&D

(03:06):
supply chain and then eventuallyI think it was like maybe after
seven or so years there that Imoved into J&J.
So there's a lot of learningsfrom there.
But also, you know, funnythings was those were the days
when people, you know engineers,were wearing neckties into the
job and dealing with machines,with those, so things like that.

(03:30):
So things have changed quite abit.
And then I came to J&J around1996, something like that.
It's a long time Right beingthere for around 26 or 27 years
or so in there.
So how did you.

Speaker 1 (03:49):
So you were in Baxter that's in healthcare sector and
you were doing sounds like verytechnical role.
How did you transition fromBaxter to J&J?
And then how did you get intothe 3D world?

Speaker 2 (04:05):
Yeah, no, no, that's a great question.
So even Baxter, even though Istarted as an engineering roles
in quality and engineering.
I was leading a team in R&D.
It was kind of a limited typeof team.
We were working mostly onarthroscopic products and more
on all our machines.

(04:26):
You know, those days were likeit takes a long time to do those
things.
So, uh, and then eventuallywhen it came to j and j, it was
more about just getting into um,you know, um a different role.
I was like I was doing the samethings, same product portfolio
and everything else.

(04:46):
So I just decided that when Ilook for something, j&j came up
with a great opportunity.
I did a little bit of a teachingin the middle, mostly the
engineering design type ofthings, very short duration,
with one of the engineeringschools, but in Ohio, and then

(05:09):
J&J opportunity came on.
It was a very good opportunitybecause during that time I think
a lot of the companies were,you know, moving production into
Mexico and other areas inCanada, a lot of capitalizing on
the efficiencies and then stufflike that.
So my first role was, you know,moving some of those,

(05:35):
transferring those, thoseproduct families, into into
Mexico.
Eventually the J&J gave up allthose to J-Ball.
Eventually the J&J gave up allthose to J-Bowl.
It was a big transfer but itwas a big journey in there.
So it got me an opportunity tolearn a lot about clinical side
of things making sure that whenwe transfer the lines they do

(06:05):
not make sure we understand theproduct intent, design intent
and when we transfer them thetechnology transfers seamlessly
and it is done on time.
So it gives me good exposure tonot only just a specific
technology but also widelydifferent type of product
platforms, so how they work, howthey impact the patient and

(06:29):
stuff like that.
So that was kind of startingrole and then bulk up and then I
was in supply chain and thenwent back to R&D.
For a long time In R&D I wasdoing a lot of work around
non-invasive stuff, right.
There was like there was atrend during those days to say,
you know, right now, if you lookat endoscopic and a lot of

(06:50):
laparoscopic surgeries, wealways have, you know, at least
three different port access.
So you'll have like a three orfour wound, a little bit of a
puncture, right.
But there was a trend to seethat maybe we can access through
the natural orifices, so eithermouth or rectum and stuff like

(07:12):
that.
So there are a bunch ofprocedures going on.
So I spent a lot of time doingthat, working around you know,
certain transoral andtransvaginal and transvectoral
type of procedures for varioustype of things.
And then eventually from thereit was mostly in the supply

(07:35):
chain side, but the CEO then was3D printing was a lot of the
patents were expiring at thetime.

Speaker 1 (07:44):
So what time was that ?
That was like around 2000 orsomething like that.

Speaker 2 (07:49):
Yeah, approximately.
And then there were a lot ofmetal printings that were coming
up, but mostly the focus was onprototyping.
At the time A lot of peoplewere excited about prototyping
and the technology was not readyfor end product at that time
also.
So that's when there was a CEOa previous CEO, his name is Alex

(08:11):
who kind of created this littlegroup to figure out change as
an organization, how we can dosome inroads into this, into the
technology, and how theapplications of the med tech,
pharmaceuticals or consumerspace.
So that's, they created alittle bit of a governing body

(08:35):
maybe.
And then I think we all, thestrategy wise, decided that
having like a central, centralCOE approach as organizationally
might be a-.

Speaker 1 (08:47):
Center of excellence.

Speaker 2 (08:48):
Yeah yeah, and that was kind of the starting of it
and it was only like me and acouple other people for a few
months and then eventually wegrew quite a bit with a lot of
you know, but there were a lotof full-time employers, leaders
and stuff, but also there werelike a bunch of contracting

(09:10):
resources.

Speaker 1 (09:11):
So it was a.

Speaker 2 (09:12):
It was a good, good journey during that time.

Speaker 1 (09:14):
So, yeah, so was 3D printing before the Center of
Excellence.
Before all this work was 3Dprinting on your radar.

Speaker 2 (09:24):
Yeah, so I think I was the reason I was kind of
pulled into that was I wasinvolved with certain metal
prototyping at the time.
Oh, okay, we had like we had oneprinter, a very old metal
printer in Warsaw, indiana,which we've seen these, and

(09:47):
there were some work going on inthat space.
And then I was also involved inwhat is called a metal center
of excellence and we were somepotential materials development
and different type of implants.

(10:09):
So it just kind of went intogether that way and it just
kind of my name was popped upand started from there.
It was nothing anything large,but potentially there would be.
But if I think about those daysit was everything was very
limited and then mostlyprototyping, mostly polymer

(10:30):
machines, and everybody would beless just doing whatever they,
you know, buy their printers,and there was no standardization
, anything like that.

Speaker 1 (10:40):
That was 20 years ago .
We're talking about.
Yes, a lot of that goes, soit's amazing where the world is
now right, that was 20 years agowe're talking about.

Speaker 2 (10:47):
Yes, it's amazing where the world is now.

Speaker 1 (10:49):
I will be glad to hear what your thought on the
comparison, the contrast thatyou were talking about.
You know, back then engineeringwas very manual, labor
intensive, and then did 3Dprinting back then changed
anything?

Speaker 2 (11:06):
in this equation for you Just from that perspective.
Yeah, I think when we weredeveloping the strategy, one
thing I realized, at least whenI was in J&J, is that because
J&J had multiple type ofplatforms pharmaceuticals to
medtech and consumer so if youreally want to make an inroads

(11:30):
and at that time we were usingthe word how do we leap beyond
some of the people already doinggood work, right?
So at that time we believedthat putting some more effort
into the materials developmentspecifically, there's polymers
or metals or biomaterials,whatever that might be yeah,

(11:52):
take a little bit more time intodeveloping, customizing it for
3d printing would be a goodjourney.
To start with, I think that'swe spent like a couple years.
It's not just everything wasdone internally, everything a
lot of it was partnerships.
We had a great network ofpartners Universities, there

(12:15):
were a bunch of contractresearch houses, just even our
own suppliers and stuff likethat.
So it was a good partnership.
And then there was a goodjourney in, you know, building
some IP portfolio involvingthose designs but also the
material side of things too.

(12:36):
So I think that enabled somerapidly, you know, deploying it
into multiple product families.

Speaker 1 (12:48):
Yeah, so of these portfolio of new material you
guys figured out, I would assume, some kind of new metal
material for 3D printing orpolymer.
That's a home run for you.

Speaker 2 (12:59):
Yeah, I think there were some from metals and stuff
like that.
Right, the two things metalswas definitely the
osteointegration portion of iton the implants was a starting
journey for a lot of people.
If you remember that we hadthat Arcan machine I think we
still had that and there was agood start with respect to the

(13:23):
porous structures.
But the other DMLS machines andstuff like that came later on.
But really getting into thenitty-gritty of that and getting
the right optimal metalstructures along with the right
type of materials, so it's acombination of both the surface

(13:45):
properties, what we can bring,plus also the alloys themselves,
plus a combination of it.
So, and then from polymer side,a lot of effort was around.
There was a lot of prototypes,but what does it take to really
make an implantable polymer,high strength polymers, right

(14:07):
engineering side?
And also, really how do we, ifever we want to do a lot of
combination products, meaninglike introducing some of the you
know active pharmaceuticals,things like that how does that,
how does that need to look like,both from you both from the
material side?
So there was a lot of effort inthis space.

(14:27):
And then bioprinting was very,very new at the time, I mean, I
think very few people were eventhinking that direction.
So I mean, there was a goodstart there.
But you know, we had a lab upin Ireland.
Yeah, orchid, I met Orchid.
I was heading a lab up inIreland.

Speaker 1 (14:45):
Yeah, orchid, I met Orchid.

Speaker 2 (14:48):
Yeah, yeah, I was heading the lab up there yeah.
She's still with.
J&j Still is, yeah, she's doingthe biomaterial side of things.
So, yeah, that was a goodstarting point there.
I think we were able to makesome good partnerships at the
bioprinting and good strategytoo.
How do you start with a similarapproach, very systematic

(15:11):
approach, respect to don't jumpinto full organs, right?

Speaker 1 (15:15):
So how do you I think everybody is learning that now
after 20 years.
So now going back to the Centerof Excellence, when it started,
was it just a kind ofexploratory project?
You got like a little bit offunding and they're like, well,
just go have this money and goexplore, or was there some kind
of overall business agendagoverning it?

Speaker 2 (15:39):
Yeah, it was when the CEO sat down.
They were already atD at thetime and in the group with the
you know the counselor, theexecutive committee, the R&D and
supply chain, and you knowthose folks were there.
But they decided to start thegroup within the supply chain,

(16:00):
typically within R&D, but it wasa very strong partnership
between those two.
So even though we started insupply chain, a lot of the
funding came out of the supplychain, sent corporate, but they
were also contributed by eachbusiness unit.
So it worked out that way.

(16:23):
The reason being R&D is veryoperating company specific,
meaning each organization hashad at the time their own R&D so
there was kind of reportinginto that company presidents and
so on and so forth was J&JWhite.

(16:50):
It had one leadership and itwas able to be a part of the
conversation in the otheroperating company and make
execute.
So that's why they kind ofpicked it, which made complete
sense because we were at thattime starting out and
applications are across multiple.
So there is always a swingbetween total decentralization
versus centralization.
So J&J do that every few years.

Speaker 1 (17:13):
So which direction are we going?
I mean tell us how this changesover time, because I definitely
heard about it, yeah yeah,definitely I think, since I mean
more towards the end of it.

Speaker 2 (17:25):
right, j&j definitely swung more towards
decentralization, so that'swhat's happening still now,
right.
So now we have, you know,farmers, you know definitely,
consumer was spun off and thenpharma and Meta got together,

(17:46):
but even then they are veryseparated out and decentralized
quite a bit supply chain andeverything else.
So the corporate structureswere reduced at the time and a
lot of the headcount was a lotof people left J&J, things of

(18:06):
that nature.
But everything has anefficiency.
I think when we started thejourney, of the COE setting up
in a centralized supply chainwas a very good starting point.
I don't know if you rememberthere was Wim Apollo.
I think you may have met him.

(18:27):
He was a leader and he was kindof one of the leaders was
owning that and then he went toPhilips Medical, I think, and
he's still there, so inNetherlands, but he was also one
of the supply chain leaders,made a big difference and Kathy,
who was at the time you knowthe leader of the supply chain

(18:52):
they did a lot of good for this.
I mean, when you start a newcenter of excellence, you just
you can't deliver results everyyear, right.
So you're really building that.
So it's very supportive.

Speaker 1 (19:03):
So supportive leadership helps so what were
some of the metrics that youneed to deliver from this center
, like do you have to inventcertain number of devices or get
fda approved for certain things, or what, what, some stuff that
you're measuring?
I?

Speaker 2 (19:18):
think that was one of the good outputs which came out
of center of excellence for us.
We had a very clear portfolioof things and we always had, you
know, with each operatingcompany or group we would have
so many, we would go sit downwith them and figure out where
we can apply and those becomesprojects, you know, and then we

(19:42):
use the TRL technology readinesslevels to really deliver that.
So from my team, we areresponsible to deliver TRL 5,
which is more about feasibility,you know, and then we hand it
over for commercialization tothe operating company.
So we will still support them.

(20:06):
But so the metrics were basedupon that.
Like you know, when can youdeliver once it gets into that
and also do the initial researchas as anybody else.
Any R&D portfolio, right,almost 80% of it is gone.
Ideas, yes, well, the funnel,so yeah, once it clicks into

(20:26):
that, once it gets chartered,then we track them and, like any
other organization, so um, so,with the, it took, took a couple
of years and then, uh, each ofthe launches came about and then
and then sped up to have likemaybe like 13 or 14 different

(20:48):
products which were launched,and you could talk more about
that, psis and that, yeah, youknow, cm upside up products and
so on, so forth.

Speaker 1 (20:59):
So yeah, so all those 14 and 15, they're all 3D
printed devices.

Speaker 2 (21:04):
Yes, yes, yeah, yeah definitely.
The big one was that implantslike the knee implants which
were launched with that newoff-street integration structure
.

Speaker 1 (21:16):
Which one is this?
Is this the TrueGraft?
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (21:20):
Which one is this?
Truematch was one of them,truematch For a brand, but also
the Attune.
Which one is this?
True Match was one of them fora brand, but also the Attune.
Attune was a system knee systemwhich is completely a 3D
printed knee system, and I meanthere was more effort starting
into the hip side, but we didn'tlaunch anything specific on the
implant side.

(21:40):
But most of this True Match isall the CMF side, also some of
the cutting guides for the kneesurgeries too.
So CMF was a good applicationbecause one it has some.
It fits very well.
A lot of it is customized andalso a lot of it needs

(22:03):
customization because in theRight right it's too unique yeah
exactly.

Speaker 1 (22:09):
You can't.
You can't name number five face.

Speaker 2 (22:11):
You're gonna get me number five face it's very, very
, uh, very, very unique, and soit was a good application for it
.
It was also one of the verygrowing areas at the time and so
, um, definitely a lot moreneeds and need in in driving
that space, so, uh, so there'sgood application there.

Speaker 1 (22:33):
So so, of these 14, 15 products, which one do you
think um made your day?

Speaker 2 (22:45):
Well, there was one product which is part of the
TrueMatch family.
It's a graft cage.
It's a TrueMatch graft cage andit was a PCL-based product.
It's a cage for people who havea lot of bone degradation,
whether it's cancers or othertype of you know, debilitating

(23:08):
diseases.
So, or even trauma-like too,people might have, you know,
limb injuries, and so it's likea cage which goes around a
broken bone.
And then it has, you know, 3dprinted to the particular trauma
area and then it is filled withmore sliced bone from the same

(23:31):
person.
I see it definitely improves alot of and that thing was unique
because it had somebone-promoting actives and the
scaffold itself was a very gooddesign.
It was kind of one thing.
We first part one of the firstones FDA was, you know, going

(23:56):
back and forth and they werelearning a lot to, you know, in
that whole area.
So a lot of the questionscoming out of it, and so that
was really, I think, end to end,a good product which is very
unique.
If you take like a bigstructural elements, like a knee

(24:17):
or a hip, it takes many, manyyears.
This was very.
The cycle time was very quick.
A lot of innovation went intoit.

Speaker 1 (24:28):
So, because a lot of listeners don't know what true
match is and what body part arewe talking about.
Are we talking about long bone?
It's a long bone.

Speaker 2 (24:39):
Yeah, long bone graft cage, so it used to be.
They would, you know, theywould use like a sheet and then
wrap around the sheet and thenand then, uh, you know around
that this one is like customized, improved, uh, improve the
critical outcomes and the uh,the integration of the bone and

(25:01):
stuff like that.

Speaker 1 (25:02):
So and this is pcl base scaffold it is a
pcl-printed.
Yeah, Interesting, Because I'vebeen hearing a lot of startups
pitching to me these days.
I mean, obviously there arebone scaffold like this for
various purposes, but alsobreast implants there are a
bunch of PCL breast scaffoldsout there?

(25:22):
Is this TrueMatch PCLbioabsorbable or they're not?
They are yes, yes, okay yeah,absolutely yeah.

Speaker 2 (25:31):
I think pcl is a good product for it.
I think also you can fine tune,uh, the piece you know pcl,
sometimes it's more.
Some of the lactic acidpolymers are also involved.
But you can find, if I can finetune when this, you want it to
get totally degraded.

Speaker 1 (25:48):
That's what I heard about it too.
It's amazing, amazing syntheticmaterial, not natural.

Speaker 2 (25:54):
Also it is.
Another advantage to the PCLwas that the scaffolds for any
biologics you want to include,whether it is some tissues,
cellular products or tissueproducts or even other type of
actives and stuff like that.

Speaker 1 (26:15):
And so this long bone .
Then what I was assuming, thefinal integrated device or, you
know, bone graft, is actuallythey can actually bear weight.

Speaker 2 (26:25):
It's a weight bearing no, I think, um no, they still
have the you know other nailsystem okay for a while, but
this kind of accelerates the youknow integration a lot more, a
lot better, okay outcome andstuff.

Speaker 1 (26:41):
So and how much customization is there with
TrueMatch?
I mean, is it like 100%one-for-one?
Oh, for that particular defect.

Speaker 2 (26:52):
Yeah, yeah, I think there was this one-to-one
because it's fully, you know,very personalized to that
patient.
Because injury is always goingto be different between child
versus adult, I see the injuryitself is going to be.
They all fairly look prettysimilar to look at, but
definitely from the finaldimensions perspective they're

(27:14):
different.

Speaker 1 (27:15):
So it doesn't matter if it's like super long bone
defect or a super short one.
You can make a scaffold plusall the anchoring screws and
fixation devices.

Speaker 2 (27:25):
Yeah, for anyone Got it.
Yeah, that's definitely aninteresting point.

Speaker 1 (27:32):
Yeah, that's definitely a personalized device
, for sure.
Yeah definitely.

Speaker 2 (27:37):
And then there were a bunch of effort around, even on
the consumer side.
Even though that was spun offand went away, there were a lot
of little things we were tryingout Fully personalization right.
I mean various things like theoral cleaning stuff.

(27:59):
There was facial mask things.

Speaker 1 (28:02):
Yeah, is that still on the market?

Speaker 2 (28:06):
I don't think so.

Speaker 1 (28:07):
I mean I have I would love to get one, if it is still
on the market.

Speaker 2 (28:12):
There were facial masks In Korea.
Actually, south Korea actuallymakes a bunch of films that are
decent.
They have actives, but alsohave some light-based, infrared
or LED based effect on it.
Korea had some things.
They had various actives too.

(28:35):
They're definitely advancingthe cosmetic side, but I'm not
very sure currently whereCanview.
Is the company doing anythingfrom that space?

Speaker 1 (28:46):
Yeah, I think this kind of brings up a really
interesting topic, which iscustomization, and I think at
different webinars that wehosted and also in-person events
like, the opinions kind of varydepending on who you talk to.
Some people said 100%customization doesn't make any
sense, it's costly and it's notscalable at the moment, Whereas

(29:10):
other people have the truevision to say you know, I think
everybody deserves personalizeddevice down the line.
We're not there yet, but weshould get there.
That should be the end point.
What do you think about thatconversation?

Speaker 2 (29:24):
Yeah, I think it was a journey, right.
I mean, when we started thejourney on personalization, we
thought, okay, end of the day,it's going to be everything we
can personalize.
You know everybody has theirunique things and it was a great
vision.
But I think that, like you said, the economics of it and the
various factors too.

(29:45):
So I'll give a couple examples,for example, on that, if you
look at, you know the implants,for example, any implant or hip
implant.
There is one you mentioned.
That too is for it's a hipimplant called Triplange which
has like the three differentthings on it.

(30:08):
If you try to, you can do aperfect job of customizing to a
certain injury on a person.
But what happens is there's somany other factors tend to
create the final outcome,meaning that you know surgeon
has a lot of play in it.

(30:29):
A lot of things can happen onceyou take the scan, make it
versus when the person reallygoes into the surgery Right, and
what happens if they discoverother type of defects when
they're at surgery.
So I think what happened wasyou know a lot of the cases just

(30:51):
to show one-to-one correlationbetween 100% customized product
to the patient outcome.
It becomes a little difficult,especially on the spine side,
you know even more.
Sometimes the outcomes are veryqualitative Right, so that was
definitely a struggle with it.

(31:12):
The other thing is 100%customization is more expensive
for sure.
Yeah, the technology you take,and then if there is the last
mile customization, which ishave one standard size all the
way to the end, and then justmake some fine tweaks specific

(31:34):
to the patient, while startingto have a better economic
viability and again it comesback to certain areas are
perfect for customization.
Certain things probably not.
It's not.
So you just need to figure outwhat does the customer need,
what does it want, and then ifit really just helps.

(31:55):
So that was a good journey forthat.

Speaker 1 (31:58):
So yeah, that's a very interesting take in terms
of outcome tracking.
You know when I started to likelearn about 3d printing.
The number one case study wasthe conjoined twin separation
where they got anatomical modeland male clinic.
Yeah, I bet 100 that it wasvery useful for them 100

(32:23):
absolutely, yeah, yeah but thenhow many conjoined twin can you
have?
that's the question.
Can you actually build abusiness around it and can you
cut down Absolutely yeah aprinting process to create

(32:45):
completely, a hundred percentcustomized implants for people
who are desperately in need,because these people cannot have
stuff on the market.
You can just pull out the shelf.

Speaker 2 (32:55):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (32:57):
Our biggest question is you know, we're definitely
solving a problem that needs tobe solved, but how big of this
population?
Is there and is there apossibility of growth in the
future?
What's your take on this kindof approach in terms of business
?
Is there actually a businessthat can be built around this

(33:18):
kind of market?

Speaker 2 (33:22):
Yeah, I think certain therapeutic platforms have
better application than others,right, For example, CMF.
Right, it kind of leans inreally well into the
customization space.

Speaker 1 (33:39):
Right.

Speaker 2 (33:40):
You know, we talked about various CMF type of
implants on the face, mandiblestructures, even the cranial
plates.
Things of that nature coulddefinitely could be more done.
Um, I think, I think thedifficulty was in the large
joints, like when you go withthe big knee joints or hip hip

(34:03):
joints.
Um, now, I again I think, thereason being that they do have a
certain level of customization.
They have different sizes, youknow, you can try it out.
But going with the 100% on itbecause of the various factors,
like I said, that how thesurgeon preferences and how the

(34:25):
surgeon works with the patient.
Not always you can show abetter outcome compared to a
standard device in order to bestandard to that patient size.
The second is finding the right.
I think some areas like spinemight be a lot more conducive.

(34:47):
Small joint areas, like youknow, foot and ankle, shoulder.
Yeah, it could be anopportunity for us to do that
With respect to spine.
I think there's a lot more.
We need to have a lot moreunderstanding of the procedures.
We need to have a lot moreunderstanding of the procedures.
And then you know, because itis complex and there could be a

(35:11):
lot of things could happen inthe surgery.
You know that how well thiscould make a difference from a
standard versus a non-standard.
So I think it's different.
On therapeutic area, how theproduct looks like One area I'm
really excited about potentialcustomers.
I mean, if we haven't made abig progress you know there's

(35:34):
some, but not as much was in thepharmaceutical space.
Yes, you know two areas.
One is you know disease-based.
You know if you have multiplediseases, you have multiple
actives Right, and how do youdrug release profiles on?

(35:54):
You can have multiple profilesand be able to personalize all
of that into one dosage form ofsome kind.
Yeah, it's an area that a fewpeople are doing some work, but
it definitely can grow quite abit.

Speaker 1 (36:10):
I invested in two actually companies.
One went away this year.
As just, you know, the 80-20rule.
They're a very interestingdifferent approach to 3D printed
pharmaceutical.
Actually, one is called CraftHealth in Singapore Door's open
still, it's still working andthe other one is Curin 3D.

(36:32):
It's incredible technology withlarge FDA approved or cleared
food 3D printer, large scale andthey make these incredible
beautiful sugar 3D printeddecorations or foods and they
can definitely be, you know,repurposed to pharmaceutical.

Speaker 2 (36:54):
But unfortunately, business there's also a company
in um, italy or uk, and workinga lot in italy.
They were making a lot ofpediatric dosage forms, like you
know.
Yeah, yes, and because you canuse a gummy bear technology, I
guess, really, but using 3Dprinting and the layering that

(37:17):
often, and stuff.
There are a few good ones.
The other area was, like someof the what do you call the
combo products which are, likeyou know, absorbable, you know
med device products which havealso actives in them in a
reservoir, yeah, and that isthat could be truly customized

(37:39):
or personalized to theparticular anatomy and how it
fits.
You know it could be implantedor sub-dermal, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (37:49):
Is the approval process, though, going to be a
pain?
Is it going to be painful forthese?

Speaker 2 (37:56):
clinicians.
It still is painful the way wego through, but one approach we
took was some countries have afast-track approval, like Japan
and South Korea.

Speaker 1 (38:09):
Oh, I'm surprised to hear that Japan and Korea Really
.

Speaker 2 (38:14):
They did have on certain things, not on
everything.
So we were trying to collect alot of the data from there and
then apply within the US and theEurope side and then apply
within the US and the Europeside.

Speaker 1 (38:28):
And then going back to the pharmaceutical side, was
J&J also kind of interested inthis area, or tackled this
problem before too?
The 3D printed pharmaceuticals.

Speaker 2 (38:40):
I think we made.
I mean.
So, yeah, I mean, I'm sorry,Maybe just clarify a little bit
for me.
They had issues with it.
No, so, yeah, I mean I'm sorry,maybe just clarify a little bit
for me.
They had issues with it no, no,no.

Speaker 1 (38:50):
Did they actually try to also do some R&D in the
space to figure it out?
Yeah, absolutely.
Oh, they did Okay.

Speaker 2 (38:58):
My group we did a lot of pharmaceutical printing
stuff.
Initial advantage they weretrying to do is some of the
dosage forms.
If you do it a traditional waylike granulation techniques and
standard manufacturing processes, certain type of APIs can't be

(39:18):
done.
They either, you know,crystallize or they just get
degraded in the potency of it.
So we were trying to use thistechnology in those cases and
create certain opportunity forit.
Also, just this whole.

(39:40):
You know, like I mentioned,that alternate multiple, you
know, polypill or whatever theycall it Polypill.

Speaker 1 (39:50):
yeah, that's what they said.

Speaker 2 (39:51):
Yeah, you're right, so doing that also as another
area, kind of exploring on theirspace, but they've made some
good progress.
I'm not sure where J&J is doingin that space anymore, but it's
been a few years.

Speaker 1 (40:10):
Yeah, I mean I'm pitching ideas to Kraft Health.
It's like why don't you makebecause all the compound
pharmacy stuff which they'regoing for, after, right now, you
could do.
And one of the actually areathat's kind of similar to
compound pharmacy but not forhumans, is the veterinarian's

(40:31):
side of things and these are thedogs, the pets.
They're so variable in size andyou know weight and their needs
they're almost.
They're equally good market togo for.
But nobody is taking thatadvice right now.
No, no, I agree with you.

Speaker 2 (40:50):
Yeah, I remember visiting them two last time I
was there.
Um, yeah, there's a lot of goodpotential in that.
But even that whole, um, thegenome-based medicine right, if
that, if there is a goodprogress there are a few
companies who are doing like, ifyou're setting taking multiple
antibiotics, they tell youexactly for your body type and

(41:13):
size and everything else, whatyou should be taking instead of
standard dosage forms.
So integrating those into thistype of compounding
opportunities would be a goodidea.
I mean, I think pain managementwould be a great area, oh, yeah
definitely.

Speaker 1 (41:32):
Even vitamins I take like 12 different pills.
They're all gin and rum.

Speaker 2 (41:35):
Yeah, absolutely, and a lot of times.
If you can have some kind of anoptimization routine that you
can figure out exactly how muchvitamins you really need, you
know, instead of taking thestandard pills.

Speaker 1 (41:46):
Yeah, figure out exactly how much vitamins you
really need, you know.
Start taking the standard pills.
Yeah, I've been taking vitamind religiously every day and I
ended up with vitamin dintoxication.
Wow.
So, yes, everybody processeddifferently, you know yeah, yeah
, that's, uh, definitely isn'tthat crazy.
It can't happen.
So anywho, I digress, um, butlet's go back to the center of

(42:08):
excellence again.
I mean you've done sounds likeyou've done a lot of research,
trial and error and stuff likethat.
What are some of the what, theideas that look really great at
the beginning but then kind ofit became a flop?
Do you have any of those from?
Product side or yeah, productside or yeah, product side.

Speaker 2 (42:28):
Yeah, I think I'm trying to think Well, I think
this whole thing aroundpersonalization right, yeah, at
one.
When you started out thejourney, I mean, we look at the
technology, what is in there.
There is also a limitation asyou go through that technology

(42:54):
is also limited to.
At the time we didn't have allwhat we have now, but the
economic model for completepersonalization was a big
learning.
Like I was talking about, it isjust economically and also
speed to the market, right.
So a combination of thoseCertain areas work really well
and other ones really didn'twork well because they did not
make any difference compared tostandard solutions.

(43:18):
So there was also an effortaround, you know, at least on
the consumer side, to last milecustomization, like we used to
have a lot of warehouses andevery company has it and we were
going to make standard productsto get there.
And then you 3D print the finalportion, customize it whether

(43:41):
it could be packaging, it couldbe some of the shapes of the
products themselves.
That was a good model.
You just need to find the rightproducts and stuff.
I don't know how far it wentneither since then, but
personalization was one biglearning for sure.
The other one was on theseimplants, too, I was going to

(44:05):
say that at one point webelieved that we could customize
it.
And the other one was this onthis implants, too, I was going
to say, yeah, at one point webelieved that we could customize
it for patient you know, theknees or hips and stuff like
that, and that also did neverprovide the clear clinical
evidence to Right Hard to provethat it's better.
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (44:23):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (44:31):
So, and then you know from more from organizational
side.
Uh, big learning for me is it'sum, especially when you're
doing innovative things, like inthe big companies uh it is, it
becomes a full-time job toreally always, you know,
justifying your existence.
You know the group's existenceand every year as the budgets go

(44:52):
through.
So that's also good learning.
For any organization which doesthis emerging area as a center
of excellence concept, you knowthat's equally important, even
more than how much innovationyou can bring through getting it
through to the end.

Speaker 1 (45:11):
I guess, yeah, so I mean, I know quite a few of the
products that you developed orhelped develop are still in the
product portfolio in J&J today.
Are they still developing morein this space?

Speaker 2 (45:28):
Yeah, I think they are.
There's definitely a swing backtowards more you know instead
of the COE concept, more intothe operating companies.
So they definitely J&J hasbuilt up COE type of concepts

(45:50):
within the R&D organizations ofeach company and they're
continuing to do like everyother product.
So instead of doing anythingspecial using what we have
already, they're trying toincorporate a lot of products in
through that.
One Like, for example,orthopedics, has a team which
kind of pulls in the 3D printing.

(46:10):
It also has a lot ofoperational benefits and
efficiencies, not just theproduct, therapeutic benefits.
So a combination of those twoit makes sense and definitely
they're doing that.

Speaker 1 (46:27):
Yeah, this is like a ginormous organization that I'm
naturally not used to talk to.
To be honest with you, Usuallythe people I talk to belong to a
team of four.
That's true.
The other thing I kind of wantto talk to you about is you
wrote an article aboutpoint-of-care 3D printing.
And this has been a hot topic,I would say, for the last three

(46:48):
years or so, but this year kindof more quiet.
But I kind of you know thisalways comes in waves.

Speaker 2 (46:56):
And.

Speaker 1 (46:57):
I kind of want to know where things are.
You think things are, yeah, andwhat was the vision before?
Where you think the things are,and can we?
What is the ultimate you thinkthe reality is going to land
with?

Speaker 2 (47:12):
this kind of point of care 3D printing.
So it is.
It is just definitely, you know, struggle between the
regulatory process, which is alittle bit of it's different.
You know the FDA was learningthrough that and we have some
good partners there too and alsothe hospital systems you know

(47:36):
the hospital leadership on wherethey want to do and the thirdly
, where, where is it moreapplicable?
Uh, um, process and theprocedures are good or worse.
And then the whole roboticspiece too.
The robotics really took a bigchunk of that.

Speaker 1 (47:55):
I totally want to talk to you about that part.

Speaker 2 (47:58):
Yeah, yeah yeah.
So I think those are thefactors which really drove it.
I'm sorry, I'm going to drinksome water.
Yeah, may have connected to thebudget efforts there, but

(48:19):
that's, I think that's what itis.
I think cutting guides and weknew that, even though we're
printing cutting guides, we knewthat's going to be gone with
robotics, right, I mean, that isrobotics, is no robotics is
going to take over that areaespecially on a lot of the knees
A lot more efficient, and Imean depending upon the scan

(48:43):
quality.
You know typically that CT scanis coming into that the robot is
pretty good.
If it is, then it navigatespretty good.
So, and also there is a lot offreedom for the surgeon.
Uh, I mean, they also have apride in I know what I'm doing.
I don't need a guide, right?
So it's changed quite a bit.

(49:07):
And then other factor was thisum, digital, uh, you know
viewers and the PDF or whateverit's called.
Viewers have come a long waywith respect to the anatomical
models and everything else.
They're able to plan it.
That's one of the bigger areas.

(49:33):
But I think these point-of-carecenters eventually became a
speeding process, meaning thatif I have something like that in
my hospital close to me on aguide or anatomical model, it

(49:53):
could be just an educationalmodel, sometimes on the oncology
side, building a model with themargins and everything else,
and able to use it during thesurgery or even to educate the
patient's family.
Those are definitely still goodapplications to go through.

(50:17):
What was that?
Axial 3D is one of thecompanies, right?
Yes it is.
They have an opportunity.

Speaker 1 (50:27):
I almost invest in that.
They do.
It was a close call.
One of the investors I knowactually invested in them John
Hartner.
I don't know if you know, buthe's an investor.
He's a great team, it's a greatcompany.
Yeah, it's a great company.

Speaker 2 (50:44):
I mean, yeah, absolutely.
And then so J&J worked with onecompany in the UK I can't think
of the name of it.
They created small centers andstuff.
They called themselvessomething else and I'll find out
, but I think, unless they canbe like a point of care, but in

(51:05):
certain specific applicationsyou know John Morris, I mean
what's his name?
Dr Morris.
He has done a good job.
He set it up, but it's not as apoint of care.
It's more about providing theanatomical or the product
surgical models on time, and thebudgeting makes a big

(51:29):
difference too.
If there are codes Medicarecodes that would be awesome.
If not, it's always a strugglewith respect to how do you
justify it.

Speaker 1 (51:39):
Yeah, I'm actually kind of skeptical about the CPT
code actually is going to helpthe industry.
I think the market dictates.
But what do you think of RICOis doing?
Rico is trying to do, point ofcare.
I agree, I agree.

Speaker 2 (51:56):
They have made.
They're making some good intros.
Yes, I'm not close enough to Imean, when they start out
they're making really goodintros, but I'm not close enough
to say what exactly they are,how exactly they're doing and
what exactly are they doing.
But the website looks reallygood and what exactly are they
doing?

Speaker 1 (52:14):
but the website looks really good.
I think they're trying to speedup the turnaround time of
providing all the printing needslike anatomical models,
surgical guides, and they'reprobably the closest to the
hospital system than I have seenwith many.
I know some startups are alsotrying to embed themselves

(52:35):
inside of the hospitals.

Speaker 2 (52:37):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (52:37):
But selling to hospitals is a pain.

Speaker 2 (52:40):
Yeah, yeah, no, I agree.
The other thing is, just becauseyou have a site in the hospital
doesn't mean that it's a truepoint of care.
You know what I mean.
It is a, you know, close andlocalized in center, which can

(53:01):
provide 3d printing right versusyou know, is it truly a
personalized workflow that youknow you get it on time for the
stuff?
I think it's a combination ofall of it, right?
So there was a hospital in theUK under the NHS system.
The problem with NHS is thatyou have a limited funds.

(53:21):
I mean, you have all you knowpublic funded systems and we set
one up there and eventually itbecame only for the.
Eventually we were only usingit for very complex revision
surgeries.
Yeah, when something is totallyoff, either if you want to do a

(53:47):
surgical planning side or dosome kind of customization,
especially on the triflans typeof things, that may be a unique
application that it can find itsway into.

Speaker 1 (53:58):
Yeah, it's just, the market size is so small.

Speaker 2 (54:01):
Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1 (54:02):
For good reasons.

Speaker 2 (54:04):
Yeah, the Reco thing is not a bad idea, it's just
instead of calling it a point ofcare, but what they're really
doing is providing.
It's like when we used to doXerox services put that very
close to the each plant.
You know we used to have thatHaving the capability close to

(54:25):
the surgeons makes a difference.
Sometimes surgeons come in andask for they have a, not just
the surgeons, any clinicalperson.
They come and say they have areally great idea, want you to
see if you can model it for me,and they can just, you know,
model it quickly and provide aprototype in the next few hours,
and that brings a lot ofinnovation to the hospital space

(54:49):
too.
So, anyway, yeah, mayo Clinicis a great.

Speaker 1 (54:55):
Mayo Clinic is a great system to do any all the
stuff that we have talked about.
I almost went there for aresidency.
You know.
The reason why it's good isit's in the middle of nowhere
and the winter is long and coldand you got nothing else to do
but just practicing medicine andtrying to figure out, inventing
stuff.
So you really focus on whatyou're doing.

Speaker 2 (55:20):
That's my theory why they're so thriving, and also
the personalities too.
Dr Morris is like a life on itsown.
He just, you know, he's able tojustify and he's a very good
salesman.
Keeping that together budget inthe central place.

Speaker 1 (55:36):
He's got a good team.
He's got a good team around him.
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (55:38):
Me and everybody else .
There's some great people, buthe's doing the budget metal 3D
printing also.
So the other disadvantage ofmetal was metal.
Could you know?
It's very hard to get metalclose to the hospital with all
the powders and stuff at thetime.
Yeah, because even if you do alot of filtration and everything

(55:59):
but always you have some kindof metal dust and qualifying
that and everything was.

Speaker 1 (56:06):
You know I was shocked when I was visiting
Children's Hospital of Bostonthat they have a metal printer
in their 3D printing center.

Speaker 2 (56:15):
Is it inside?

Speaker 1 (56:16):
Inside, yes, Not inside of the hospital, but in
their research center.

Speaker 2 (56:23):
So I don't know.

Speaker 1 (56:24):
Yeah, yeah.
No, they're not going to putexplosive in the hospital.
That would be a bad idea.
Yeah, but I was still kind ofpretty impressed that they were
able to do that.

Speaker 2 (56:34):
Well, even Singapore did that.
When we had the J&J, had their3D printing lab, whatever that
was in that National Instituteof Work yeah, nih hospital,
maybe it's called.
I'm not sure, don't know.

Speaker 1 (56:49):
There are a couple there are like maybe two or
three major hospitals there.
Yeah, so let's go back to thesurgical guide, because I
remember you're saying surgicalguide is going to go away when
everyone else still are prettyexcited about it.

Speaker 2 (57:04):
Oh, I'm not saying it can go away.

Speaker 1 (57:09):
Well, I think people, first of all people outside of
orthopedic or surgery, theydon't really know what robots
can do these days, unless youactually look into it, unless
you have to do the surgeryyourself.
Do you mind if you just sharewith us what robots now can do
to help the surgeon.

Speaker 2 (57:30):
Well, I think there are the navigational robots too,
I think in navigational wordswhat I'm meaning is that once
you have the CT scan, it'soverlaid with the procedure.
What you want to do, takingyour end effector, whether it's
cutter, whatever that might be,the arm to the location, can be

(57:53):
done a lot more precisely withthe robot than what we can do.
I mean, the thing is, there maybe some unique applications,
unique procedures.
The cutting guide still will bethere, right, Because of
whatever that reason might be,but it slowly.

Speaker 1 (58:15):
I have an application .
I have an application for whycutting guy may need to exist.
It's to convert bad surgeonsinto better surgeons, that is
true, you know the ones that youalways work with.
The ones that you always workwith are the best.
And those guys don't even needanything.

Speaker 2 (58:35):
That true, they can do their surgery close eyes okay
it's close eyes the people likeyou know, I would need some
assistant yeah, no, definitely Ithink that they're.
The other area is that the whole.
It doesn't have to be a cuttingguide.
The guides right, theanatomical models, the surgical

(58:57):
models.
From a planning perspective,especially complex surgeries,
makes a huge difference.
You can print, especially ifthere's a cancer surgery in a
very close-knit area close-knitareas, able to print that you
know the model and then have aspace to do the planning.

(59:18):
You know, with instruments andstuff like that, yeah, See what
the margins are.

Speaker 1 (59:25):
That's still going to be there.

Speaker 2 (59:26):
I think, yeah, I believe so too.
Yeah, and it's still.
I mean there are some, manyother guides.
It could, like you said,depending upon the experience of
the surgeon, could be very,very valuable for them too, and
the robots could go down.
You know there are.

Speaker 1 (59:42):
Robots are expensive as well.

Speaker 2 (59:43):
I think they're like on average it's a $1 million
each right On average, yeah yeah, absolutely they're not, and
there are so many countriesglobally you know, hospitals who
don't have any guys.

Speaker 1 (59:56):
Right.

Speaker 2 (59:57):
These areas can definitely bring a big, big
difference in it.
So this is the company I workwith for the prosthetics and all
this stuff in Jordan.

Speaker 1 (01:00:09):
Right, so 3D4Me, is that what it is?
3d4me, yeah.
3d4me, yes, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:00:15):
I mean, it's very they're doing some good.
So they started out the hearingaids and they're now doing some
prosthetics the below-the-kneeprosthetic and then they're
trying the above-the-knee stufftoo.
But you can see that howminimal you know things are in a

(01:00:36):
region like that.

Speaker 1 (01:00:37):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:00:38):
Type of materials you can get, so things you do there
, you would need basic things.

Speaker 1 (01:00:46):
Yeah, definitely.

Speaker 2 (01:00:49):
Different population.

Speaker 1 (01:00:50):
Different population definitely have different needs.
Low resource populationsprobably would need the guides a
little bit longer thansomewhere like here.
So, speaking of making surgeonshappy, you also have a project
have customized surgicalinstruments.

Speaker 2 (01:01:11):
Yes, yeah, tell us about that, yes, Tell us about
that.
Yeah, so it was mostly focusedon the DPs, especially synthese,
and there was when synthese gotintegrated with Depew.
There were two differentcenters One was within Depew,
one was synthese.

(01:01:31):
So we combined them later on.
What that is is that.
Remember that.
I don't know if you rememberthat, how the rules have changed
, but there was a customdesignation within the FDA.
You could do like 10 or 15 ofthem instruments per year, and
using that particular regulation, custom device regulation and

(01:02:01):
using that particular regulation, custom device regulation, the
surgeons would either.
They would be like a specialcases Maybe some person is very
obese and they need some specialinstruments.
Or it could be a special area,that they want to access some of
the pelvic areas and stuff.
They want to access some of thepelvic areas and stuff.
So they used to, you know, sendthe request Actually it's
pencil sketches and say this iswhat I need, or I'm trying out a

(01:02:21):
new procedure, a new way to dothe same thing, and then we
would take that, we would scanit in, design it and print it
and then give it to them.
You know, so it it was just anengagement, but 3d printing
really made a big differencewith respect to helping them on
very unique, yeah, proceduralneeds or patient need, uh, and

(01:02:47):
very custom and not a big volume.
Like I said, there was alimitation on how many you can
make on those.
There were a lot of variety ofthings that were done through
that.

Speaker 1 (01:02:58):
Yeah, maybe for like left-handed, if a surgeon is
left-handed they need, like adifferent set of instruments
yeah, instruments and stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:03:08):
Just reversing the hand.

Speaker 1 (01:03:10):
Or the surgeon is really big size or really small
size themselves, because I knowa colleague she's tiny yeah and
you know, nothing fits basically.

Speaker 2 (01:03:23):
Especially some of the orthopedic surgeons right, I
mean surgeries like if you'redealing with, you know, large
bone.
It's just some of the using thebone, impactors and stuff like
that.
You need a lot of you know,need a lot of strength in that.
So definitely human factors isa big, big portion of it.
That was a very goodapplication.

(01:03:44):
I think J&J had a really goodsuccess in it and the
inefficiency there was becauseof all the little companies.
Everybody were doing their ownlittle things and then
eventually that got integratedinto one center.

Speaker 1 (01:03:58):
They would provide you know services that way, so,
which is a good move so if Iwant my own personalized
instruments these days, is thatstill possible to?

Speaker 2 (01:04:07):
request these?
Yeah, they specific ones theycan definitely ask for.
There are full trays too, like,depending upon procedure, you
would have a full tray and thenif you need a, you know
personally, if you need acustomized tray for yourself,
they will do that and thatthey'll mark it and get it to

(01:04:29):
you.

Speaker 1 (01:04:30):
So yeah, so, yeah, great, um, I mean, if we can, we
can talk forever about thesedifferent applications, on and
on forever.
But I want to kind of bring usto the present moment.
Um, so are you like spendingfour hours per week working now,
or how do you spend your time?

Speaker 2 (01:04:50):
yeah, these days I think um and enjoy you know,
enjoy your, your life yeah,definitely, I've been traveling
a lot more, uh, spending sometime with my you know, family
and stuff like that, um, but, um, maybe I I'll spend like a day
or so per week on these things.
Nice, it's been good.

(01:05:13):
Yeah, it's like, it's like avariety of engagements.
I mean there's one add up onthe advisory board.

Speaker 1 (01:05:22):
Yeah, tell us about add up what company, where is
this company located and what dothey do.

Speaker 2 (01:05:29):
Add up makes 3d printers Okay like fully
integrated metal printers, bigones.
The advantage with them is theyhave the entire system is fully
closed loop, like the powders.

Speaker 1 (01:05:45):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (01:05:46):
And they have fine powders and stuff like that,
they can do it on their own, sothat brings some advantages to
them.
There's some good softwareinterface which does a good job,
so that brings some advantagesto them.
There's some good softwareinterface which does a good job
of print efficiencies and things, but they're a French-based
company.
Remember that Michelin tires.

Speaker 1 (01:06:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:06:09):
And Michelin actually invested in a startup called
Adap, along with another companycalled Thieves, who are more on
the industrial side, and thiscame out of it.
So they headquartered in Francenear Paris, and then they have
US R&D and distribution stuffout of Cincinnati.

(01:06:32):
So that's why Ohio connectionagain.

Speaker 1 (01:06:34):
Yeah, and distribution stuff out of
Cincinnati Got it Ohioconnection again.

Speaker 2 (01:06:36):
Yeah, yeah, so it's not too far from me.
So they, you know, I think myrole is to really I'm along with
an expert who is on the qualityside.
Another person is more abusiness person.
We kind of meet every twice ayear, sometimes three times,
Just kind of help them reviewwhat has happened, the medical

(01:06:58):
side, provide feedback on someof the strategy, technical side,
you know.

Speaker 1 (01:07:06):
When you say they're closed loop, does that mean they
also do post-processing in thesame location, in the same box?

Speaker 2 (01:07:13):
Yeah, I think the powders are all contained, don't
?
It's like I say from feeds backand forth, so there is no, and
then um, when they say post,that is no, they get rid of the
powder.

Speaker 1 (01:07:26):
Yeah, like get rid of the powder of the implant, for
example.
Do they do that?
Or surfacing yeah, those areall internalized, oh okay.

Speaker 2 (01:07:36):
But if you have to cut something off or wire edm
stuff like that and then finishsome stuff grinding and those
are all done outside, so it's avery good system, I think um,
but it is.
It's a big, big system and thenit just trying to get um, it's
more expensive, uh, compared tothen it just trying to get more
expensive compared to others,but it does have a lot of

(01:07:59):
benefits.
So one of the things, what weprovide feedback to them is how
do you position yourself, whereto go that type of thing,
especially on the medical side,trying to generate evidence on
how it is better.
It's definitely more efficient.
You can get an implant outfaster compared to other

(01:08:24):
traditional machine 3D systems.

Speaker 1 (01:08:25):
Like US, for example, or Trump Troop, or Trump Trump,
trump.
Sorry, not the president, butTrump Not the president, no, no,
yeah Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:08:36):
No, no, yeah Trump.
There are other ones too inthis space.
Velo 3D is another company.

Speaker 1 (01:08:40):
Yeah, velo yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:08:42):
But mostly this comparison with 3D systems
machines.
At the time we were comparing alot of the things, especially
the spinal implants, right,having that benchmark and how
much it takes.
So that is quite a bit close to30%, I think don't quote me on

(01:09:03):
that time but 30% improved inthe cycle times and stuff.
So there is some advantages toit.
There are a lot of companiesthat are taking advantage.
There are small companies orsmall contract manufacturers or
small companies.
They work with them.

(01:09:24):
They can't afford the machinethemselves.
Sometimes they just have themdo the work for them and pay for
it, or they'll band togetherand buy a machine.
You know those type of thingsare they focusing mostly the us?
no, they're the france dealswith all the europe, so they

(01:09:47):
have their own setup there inasia.
It's the us.
Us is done from here, from here, from these guys in Cincinnati.

Speaker 1 (01:09:55):
I think the biggest elephant in the room when we
talk about these metal 3Dprinters is the Chinese printers
are getting pretty good.

Speaker 2 (01:10:02):
Yeah, yeah, they are, they definitely are.

Speaker 1 (01:10:06):
How do you get a competitive edge over that?

Speaker 2 (01:10:09):
Definitely Some of the aerospace too.
They have advantage on thelarge scale, large printers,
large-format printers.
I think I can't think of it.
It starts with the bluesomething company and they do
some really big aeronauticalprinters and really comparable
in every way.
So cost-wise it's definitelyvaluable.

Speaker 1 (01:10:34):
Yeah, like three times less.

Speaker 2 (01:10:36):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:10:36):
Or something like that.

Speaker 2 (01:10:38):
Yeah, so yeah, it's going to, and also this all the
back and forth on trade warsgoing on, so see what happens,
right.

Speaker 1 (01:10:48):
Yeah, I kind of just turn off my news these days.
I'm going to let it simmer foranother 90 days and see where
the world is.
Um.
So I mean, other than the tradewar, sam, what do you think of
the future of 3d printing us?
Let's just say, if there is notrade war, um, everything, as it

(01:11:09):
was like the healthcare spaceyeah, where?
Where do you think like thefuture winners are coming from?

Speaker 2 (01:11:14):
Yeah, I think a few areas right.
One would be the people.
Like some of the procedures, ifwe can continuously work with
other emerging technologies aswell, right, for example.
And then a lot of theimprovements which can come
through AI, whether it's themanufacturing side or on the

(01:11:37):
hospital setting itself.
3d printing can be very wellintegrated into that.
So I think if people, if theycan start working in context of,
instead of saying we areseparate, there will be a lot
more opportunities if you canintegrate into the emerging ones
.

(01:11:58):
The other one is underutilizedis the capabilities around that
whole bioprinting space.
It takes a while because ofclinical studies and everything
else, but it can bring thatalong with a combination of

(01:12:18):
products, a combination ofbiologic and pharma and the
medtech.
So I know it's a longer cycletype stuff, but the value-wise
3D printing can bring a lot ofvalue in it.
But if I look at the metalspace, right, purely in the
metal space, definitely it hascome a long way that some of the

(01:12:44):
complex structures we use toCNC machine them.
You don't even need to go backthere.
Right.
Printing has come such a longway Very little secondary
finishing in a cut and go typeof a lot of the fine powders
people are using now comes withvery good results.
So there's gonna be a lot ofmanufacturing efficiency from

(01:13:09):
the metal perspective that needto be continued to drive.
So I think that's one spacethat's going to continue.
The other one is takingadvantage of material science
for various surface effectsright, whether it is the
coatings or integrating some ofthe HA coatings for sure they do

(01:13:29):
that but also incorporatingsome of the actives into the
structures, lattice structuresand whatever that might be,
definitely will bring big valueto that.
The polymer space I would saythat high strength polymers for
sure we don't have.

(01:13:51):
We need to continue to work ondriving cost on a peak and
efficiency at the peak, but alsoother type of polymers and then
absorbables, trying to reallygetting very precise with those
and able to store actives rightin polymers, whether it is for

(01:14:15):
surface side or for drugdelivery, whatever that might be
.
Is it a good area?
We need to continue to work onthat.

Speaker 1 (01:14:22):
So, yeah, that dream has been.
I've had a lot of people havethat dream for decades.

Speaker 2 (01:14:30):
Yeah, I think what happened was there's so much, so
many.
I think there is, you know, alot of turmoil in that right
People were, we were all workingtowards it and then just kind
of devoted to something else,and so I think we just need to
find the right application andget something out.

(01:14:52):
There were a few, actually JJwas working on I don't know if I
could talk more on that, butthere were unique things that
could have progress.
And then the problem with thebig companies is that you put
them in and then everything getsportfolio revisited and they
cancel projects and thenanything which is in the front

(01:15:15):
end, like that, would die out.
So the startups I think there'san opportunity for the startups
.
I did see one on your one ofthe startups you had.

Speaker 1 (01:15:26):
Pitch3D yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:15:29):
Which one is this?

Speaker 1 (01:15:31):
We have a couple with PCO, is it?

Speaker 2 (01:15:33):
PCO implants?

Speaker 1 (01:15:34):
Yeah, there was one with creating a mesh with PCO.
Is it PCO implants?

Speaker 2 (01:15:35):
Yeah, there was one with creating a mesh type of
stuff.
There was like a breast mesh.
There was one.

Speaker 1 (01:15:44):
They're all doing it.
There is one that's using MEW,so Melt Electro-Writing.
Is that the one, meltElectro-Writing?

Speaker 2 (01:15:53):
yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:15:54):
That's called the bio lattice AI yeah, melt
electrolighting.

Speaker 2 (01:15:59):
I know I saw them also integrating into the
regular bioprinter 3D which is agreat idea because you can
build a scaffold and then printthe cells.

Speaker 1 (01:16:11):
It's even newer and also unproven than 3D printing,
but yes, I think Paul Dalton isleading the academic side of
things and he also recentlyfunded a startup with the
technology.
I haven't really dug deep intoit yet, but yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:16:30):
The other area is just the way the world is now.
The other area is this, thisthe way the world is now.
That, um, how much people aregoing to put money into that
front end venture work too,right?
Yes, people are like a littlehesitant to do those stuff, but
I think hopefully that willchange and, uh, get a lot more
innovation in the front end ofit.

(01:16:50):
So, anyway, just that's my fewlittle thinking.
But.

Speaker 1 (01:16:54):
But, um, no, that was very, very insightful um,
especially from someone who hasworked with ginormous
corporation like change.
I've never worked for anycorporation so I don't know what
that feels like, and the factthat you, you know, persist and
accomplish so much is veryadmirable.
Now, if a college student oryounger person asks you you know

(01:17:17):
what should they do to get intomed tech and 3D world, what
kind of advice do you havegenerally for the next
generation?

Speaker 2 (01:17:25):
Yeah, I think you know.
I think the important thing isthat you need to have get good
engineering background.
It could be mechanicalengineering, it could be
material science.
Having good, strong in thefundamentals of something is
always a good starting for them.
I think that helps, it, doesn't?
You know?
3d printing and every othertechnology will come and go, but

(01:17:49):
having that good foundationwould be really important for,
as they go through, some of themdo like they go jump right into
business you know stuff, but,and then they want to come back,
which is which is kind of kindof difficult, but and from a
schooling perspective I wouldlike to say that but um, the
other one is um.

Speaker 1 (01:18:09):
You sound like my asian parents my Asian parents.

Speaker 2 (01:18:16):
Yeah, probably don't do this, but I'm probably a
recipient of that.
I mean, I did go through goodschool.
It was pretty good, so ithelped me all along my life.
I guess the other thing I wouldsay is that you know, like me,
I was mostly in the bigcompanies most of the time and

(01:18:40):
most all the time.
There's a lot of inefficiencythere too.
So you know, tasting both ofthem working in a small startup
gives you the experience to doall different functions and then
also trying the biggercompanies.
There's a little more structure.
Probably there's more money init.
It's also a good thing to havethem and try and try both of

(01:19:04):
them.
Specifically on the 3D printing, I would say that you know,
having a good feel for it, goingto to company which has a good
3d printing um, you knowfunction and discipline but and
then jumped into a productdevelopment, r, d, those type of

(01:19:26):
roles.
So taking that 3d printingtechnology knowledge into a
research and developmentpipeline type of organization
makes you a better engineer.

Speaker 1 (01:19:41):
Right, Working in that and bringing that into that
, yeah, yeah, it definitelyhelps you with the way you think
and process.
Information for sure eitherengineering or going through
these big systems.
Information for sure eitherengineering or going through
these big systems.
And yeah, if I have to start,around you know my life again.

(01:20:01):
Um, I definitely want to thinkwhat this job is going to do to
like.
What am I going to learn fromthis job?
yeah, yeah rather than securitymoney status.
You know many other things thatpeople typically focus on yeah,
yeah, that is so true, so true,so true.

Speaker 2 (01:20:22):
So they say, like it takes like 10 000 hours or
something to be good atsomething, right the procedures
or whatever that might be.
So people jump a lot toosometimes.
Sometimes it's not the best.

Speaker 1 (01:20:39):
Yeah Well, this is a very insightful conversation
with you, sam.
Hopefully we can have anotherconversation some other time to
focus on different topics, butthank you so much today again
for joining us, and I'm sure ourlisteners will appreciate this
very much.

All Episodes

Episode #81 | From J&J to the Future: Sam Onukuri's 30-Year Adventure in 3D Printed Medical Devices

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

The Joe Rogan Experience

24/7 News: The Latest

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Episode #81 | From J&J to the Future: Sam Onukuri's 30-Year Adventure in 3D Printed Medical Devices