As 3D printing of patient-specific models evolve as a standard of practice for pre-surgical planning of complex procedures, the face of the medical device industry is changing.  One such entrant is Paris based, early stage medtech firm BIOMODEX who announced earlier this month that it added $15 million to its Series A funding round, bringing the total raised to $18.5 million to support its penetration into the surgical planning segment.

BIOMODEX’s patented INVIVOTECH software in combination with state of the art multi-material 3D printers, like the Stratasys J750 model, creates new materials to match the complex biomechanical behavior of human tissue producing accurate, detailed medical models from high-quality files derived from its  patented algorithmic.

BIOMODEX president and co-founder Thomas Marchand tells me of INVIVOTECH, “It is the algorithm that builds the composite material and that will distribute the different materials at a micron level; we can control every single drop of the material to match the mechanical target we have. We are inventing new composite materials thanks to this algorithm.”

BIOMODEX’s innovative solution will help surgeons predict what will be the best treatment for their patients and offer a unique planning and practicing experience to reduce risk and improve patient outcomes. Marchand explains, “The vision is that our personalized, 3D printed patient-specific models will enable surgeons to gain a better understanding of their patient’s unique anatomy – so they will be able to plan the most complex procedures in an optimal way.  Our goal is to help surgeons choose the best medical device and operating strategy to reduce risks and improve medical and financial outcomes.”

We have previously demonstrated in a number of recent blogs the benefits of pre-surgical planning in terms of reducing operating time, radiation exposure, anesthesia dose and enhanced patient outcome for complex cardiovascular cases, such as endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and left atrial appendage.

The Benefits Of Improving Surgical Care And Outcomes

By current estimates, one out of every six surgeries in the United States experiences a complication bringing the average procedure cost with complications to $36,060, 119% higher than the average cost of a procedure without a complication. On average this amounts to an additional cost of $19,626 (1).

In recent decades, widespread efforts have been made to improve the quality of surgical care (2-7).  In the United States alone several emerging policy initiatives shift risk to hospitals by holding them accountable for the costs of complications and asserting overall reductions in Medicare payments for underperforming hospitals with high readmission rates, high incidences of hospital acquired conditions, including surgical complications, and poor patient satisfaction.

BIOMODEX is hedging its bet and is well positioned to capitalize on this growing trend worldwide to contain health care costs and embrace value based care that prioritizes patient outcomes over throughput.

“The first $3.6M fundraising in 2016 allowed us to develop EVIAS, a unique product in the field of interventional neuroradiology, aimed at reducing operational risks during the treatment of intracranial aneurysms,” Marchand tells me. “The latest financing will be used to develop new products in the interventional cardiology space and enable the opening of a new manufacturing facility outside Boston, Massachusetts.  Boston is an ideal location for us with its mecca of world renowned medical centers and high concentration of medical device companies as we evolve and grow from our entrepreneurial roots.”

Advancing 3D Printed Medtech Innovations

When asked about his company’s future endeavors, Marchand says it plans to launch its first product into the cardiovascular space at the upcoming Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) meeting in September.  Known as LAACS, it is a software program unique to left atrial appendage patient-specific modeling and will be available for purchase in 2019.

3D Printing Medtech Startup Helps Surgeons Predict And Validate The Best Treatment For A Specific Patient | 4th Dimension Technologies
Medical Device by BIOMODEX via Facebook.

On another front, Marchand is considering opening a service bureau whereby PolyJet users could take advantage of BIOMODEX’s expertise by sending them their imaging files, such as MRIs and CTs, for file optimization prior to printing them.  “This would certainly bolster the use of 3D printing for pre-surgical planning where technical expertise at segmentation and file preparation are lacking or availability is constrained.”

BIOMODEX is seeing rising acceptance as the young company continues on its path forward.  In 2017, the company 3D printed more than 1,000 medical models and is on target to do five times that in 2018 according to Marchand. He credits the assistance and tools from Dassault Systèmes as well as aid through the 3DEXPERIENCE Lab accelerator for the growth and success of BIOMODEX, a company to watch.




  1. Healy MA, Mullard AJ, Campbell DA, Dimick, JB. Hospital and payer costs associated with surgical complications. JAMA Surg. 2016; 151(9):823-830. Surg.2016.0773.
  2. Chassin MR, Galvin RW. Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on Health Care Quality. The urgent need to improve health care quality. JAMA. 1998; 280(11):1000-1005.
  3. O’Connor GT, Plume SK, Olmstead EM, et al. The Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. A regional intervention to improve the hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA. 1996; 275(11):841-846.
  4. Khuri SF, Daley J, et al. Principal Investigators of the Patient Safety in Surgery Study. Successful implementation of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in the private sector: the Patient Safety in Surgery Study. Ann Surg. 2008; 248(2):329-336.
  5. Birkmeyer NJ, Birkmeyer JD. Strategies for improving surgical quality: should payers reward excellence or effort? N Engl J Med. 2006; 354(8):864-870.
  6. Campbell DA Jr, Kubus JJ, Henke PK, HuttonM, Englesbe MJ; The Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative. The Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative: a legacy of Shukri Khuri. Am J Surg. 2009; 198(5 )(suppl):S49-S55.
  7. Waljee JF, Birkmeyer NJ. Collaborative quality improvement in surgery. Hand Clin.2014; 30(3):335-343, vi.
Have a request?
close slider