Centralized vs. Open AFO Design Platforms: What Really Works Best for Clinics?
, by Hugh Sheridan, 4 min reading time
Do we rely on a centralized design ecosystem like PIRO by Invent Medical — where design, validation, and production standards are tightly controlled?Or do we embrace open design platforms, where clinicians, designers, and manufacturers can work across multiple tools and technologies with more freedom?
As digital workflows continue reshaping orthotics, one of the biggest strategic questions facing clinics is where design should live.
Do we rely on a centralized design ecosystem like PIRO by Invent Medical — where design, validation, and production standards are tightly controlled?
Or do we embrace open design platforms, where clinicians, designers, and manufacturers can work across multiple tools and technologies with more freedom?
Both approaches can transform productivity — but they come with different implications for quality, cost, scalability, and independence.
Below, we unpack the pros and cons.
Centralized Design Platforms (e.g., PIRO)
Centralized platforms bring everything into one controlled environment: scanning, design rules, libraries, approvals, and sometimes even manufacturing.
Advantages
1. Consistency and clinical repeatability
Built-in design constraints reduce the risk of errors, ensuring more predictable outcomes across teams — especially useful for newer digital adopters.
2. Faster onboarding
Standardized workflows make it easier to train staff, scale locations, and maintain quality even with high staff turnover.
3. Integrated validation
Centralized systems often include gait logic, anatomical checks, and manufacturing presets aligned to specific printers and materials.
4. Strong support ecosystem
Updates, troubleshooting, and new features come from one vendor — reducing the workload on internal teams.
Trade-Offs
1. Vendor dependency (lock-in)
Design libraries, file formats, and production pipelines may be tied to the platform. Switching later can be costly.
2. Limited design creativity
Clinicians sometimes feel constrained when adapting complex or unusual AFO cases.
3. Innovation moves at the vendor’s pace
If a clinic wants to try new materials or printers not yet supported, it may need to wait.
Open AFO Design Platforms
Open platforms allow clinics to combine different scanners, CAD tools, and printers, often using neutral file formats and modular workflows.
Advantages
1. Full flexibility
Clinicians can fine-tune designs for unique cases, hybrid solutions, and advanced biomechanical modifications.
2. Multi-vendor compatibility
Easier integration with different 3D printers, materials, and external fabrication partners.
3. Long-term ownership of knowledge
Design templates and libraries belong to the clinic — building IP and internal capability.
4. Often more economical at scale
Once teams are trained, per-case costs can drop significantly.
Trade-Offs
1. Higher training burden
Teams need deeper CAD, biomechanics, and digital workflow knowledge.
2. Risk of variability
Without strong internal standards, outcomes can differ between technicians and branches.
3. Quality assurance becomes internal work
Clinics must create their own validation protocols, documentation, and design audits.
4. Steeper learning curve for new adopters
Early mistakes can be costly if processes are not well structured.
So… Which Model Is “Better” for AFOs?
The answer depends on where a clinic is on its digital journey.
Centralized platforms are ideal when:
-
starting digital workflows for the first time
-
managing multi-site operations with limited specialist staff
-
prioritizing consistency, speed, and risk-reduction
-
outsourcing production or standardizing across partners
Open platforms shine when:
-
clinics want full control and independence
-
complex, custom biomechanical cases are common
-
local manufacturing is part of the strategy
-
building long-term digital expertise and IP matters
A Hybrid Future — Not Either/Or
More forward-looking clinics are adopting hybrid strategies:
-
centralized workflows for standard, high-volume AFOs
-
open workflows for complex, research, or specialty devices
-
shared internal libraries, QA protocols, and outcome tracking across both
This approach protects quality while still encouraging innovation and cost optimization.
What This Means for the Qaadir Community
For IMEA clinics transitioning to digital:
- Start structured — reduce risk, build confidence.
- Gradually expand into open design once teams are trained.
- Invest early in clinical protocols, QA, and documentation, regardless of platform.
Digital design isn’t just about software — it’s about building reliable systems that protect patients, clinicians, and business sustainability.
Three Dee Bulletin posts
-
Qaadir and the New 3D Printing Landscape: Bridging Chinese Value and Western Reliability
The global 3D printing market has changed dramatically in the last decade. Once dominated by a handful of Western manufacturers, it is now shaped by...
-
TPU vs EVA: Comparing 3D-Printed SMOs and EVA Draped SMOs
As digital workflows continue to reshape orthotic practice, Supramalleolar Orthoses (SMOs) have become one of the clearest case studies for comparing traditional fabrication with additive manufacturing....
-
Why FDM 3D Printing Shouldn’t Be Used for AFOs
Over the past decade, 3D printing has opened exciting new opportunities in orthotics. Faster prototyping, lighter devices, digital design, and customizable shapes have made additive...
