Auburn University's veterinary and mechanical-engineering teams spent nearly a year developing a 3D-printed camera laryngoscope for teaching intubation in goats and pigs. The roughly $150 device is not intended to replace a conventional clinical instrument; it makes a difficult-to-observe procedure visible to a group.

From a $30 camera to a purpose-built tool

The project began with an approximately $30 borescope camera. The improvised first version showed that the airway image could support teaching, but usable handling required purpose-built mechanics. The veterinary team therefore worked with Auburn's ME3D student laboratory through several prototypes.

The completed design includes a lever-controlled camera, allowing manual adjustment of viewing angle. A large display shows the procedure in real time to the student, instructor and group. An adjustable blade fits different animal sizes, making this a focused large-animal teaching tool rather than a general human medical device.

The teaching benefit

With a conventional laryngoscope, the person performing the procedure normally has the direct view. A camera provides a shared visual reference: the instructor can guide blade or tube movement in real time, while peers learn from more than a later explanation. That is valuable for students encountering large-animal anatomy for the first time.

Auburn says students still learn with conventional laryngoscopes. The camera version is supplementary visualisation. That is a sensible boundary: a screen changes hand-eye coordination, and the camera's field of view is not identical to direct vision.

What the $150 figure means

The stated $150 is the cost of the completed device, not a lifecycle cost. Public information does not break down print labour, assembly, spares, cleaning, camera life or display cost. A reproducing institution must verify material compatibility, disinfection, electrical protection and mechanical loads in its own environment.

3D printing provides fast geometry iteration and a low-volume custom housing and blade. It does not prove that a printed polymer is automatically suitable for a patient-contact clinical tool exposed to repeated cleaning. Material, surface, gaps and fasteners need specific biological-contamination and disinfectant risk assessment.

Evidence and availability

The team submitted a paper that is intended to include the print files. Auburn says the files will become available once the paper is published. Until then, the project is not completely reproducible open hardware: geometry, material, orientation, assembly and validation steps are not available as a full package.

The institutional account says the product proved useful with patients, but gives no case count, comparator, intubation time, success rate or complication data. The supported claim is therefore that a teaching prototype was built and used, not that it has clinical superiority or regulatory clearance.

Editorial conclusion

Auburn's project shows 3D printing solving a narrow teaching problem by combining a low-cost camera with custom mechanics. Its value lies in shared visibility and fast iteration. Wider adoption will require published files plus evidence for cleaning, durability and teaching outcomes.