TY - JOUR
T1 - 3D-printing and upper-limb prosthetic sockets
T2 - promises and pitfalls
AU - Olsen, Jennifer
AU - Day, Sarah
AU - Dupan, Sigrid
AU - Nazarpour, Kianoush
AU - Dyson, Matthew
N1 - © 2021 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting /republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.
PY - 2021/2/15
Y1 - 2021/2/15
N2 - Modernising the way upper-limb prosthetic sockets are made has seen limited progress. The casting techniques that are employed in clinics today resemble those developed over 50 years ago and there is still a heavy reliance on manual labour. Modern manufacturing methods such as 3D scanning and printing are often presented as ready-to-use solutions for producing low-cost functional devices, with public perceptions being largely shaped by the superficial media representation and advertising. The promise is that modern socket manufacturing methods can improve patient satisfaction, decrease manufacturing times and reduce the workload in the clinic. However, the perception in the clinical community is that total conversion to digital methods in a clinical environment is not straightforward. Anecdotally, there is currently a disconnect between those developing technology to produce prosthetic devices and the actual needs of clinicians and people with limb difference. In this paper, we demonstrate strengths and drawbacks of a fully digitised, low-cost trans-radial diagnostic socket making process, informed by clinical principles. We present volunteer feedback on the digitally created sockets and provide expert commentary on the use of digital tools in upper-limb socket manufacturing. We show that it is possible to utilise 3D scanning and printing, but only if the process is informed by expert knowledge. We bring examples to demonstrate how and why the process may go wrong. Finally, we provide discussion on why progress in modernising the manufacturing of upper-limb sockets has been slow yet it is still too early to rule out digital methods.
AB - Modernising the way upper-limb prosthetic sockets are made has seen limited progress. The casting techniques that are employed in clinics today resemble those developed over 50 years ago and there is still a heavy reliance on manual labour. Modern manufacturing methods such as 3D scanning and printing are often presented as ready-to-use solutions for producing low-cost functional devices, with public perceptions being largely shaped by the superficial media representation and advertising. The promise is that modern socket manufacturing methods can improve patient satisfaction, decrease manufacturing times and reduce the workload in the clinic. However, the perception in the clinical community is that total conversion to digital methods in a clinical environment is not straightforward. Anecdotally, there is currently a disconnect between those developing technology to produce prosthetic devices and the actual needs of clinicians and people with limb difference. In this paper, we demonstrate strengths and drawbacks of a fully digitised, low-cost trans-radial diagnostic socket making process, informed by clinical principles. We present volunteer feedback on the digitally created sockets and provide expert commentary on the use of digital tools in upper-limb socket manufacturing. We show that it is possible to utilise 3D scanning and printing, but only if the process is informed by expert knowledge. We bring examples to demonstrate how and why the process may go wrong. Finally, we provide discussion on why progress in modernising the manufacturing of upper-limb sockets has been slow yet it is still too early to rule out digital methods.
KW - 3D printing
KW - additive manufacturing
KW - amputee
KW - digital scanning
KW - prosthetic
KW - socket
KW - trans-radial
KW - upper-limb
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85101269527&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/TNSRE.2021.3057984
DO - 10.1109/TNSRE.2021.3057984
M3 - Article
C2 - 33587701
AN - SCOPUS:85101269527
VL - 29
SP - 527
EP - 535
JO - IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
JF - IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
SN - 1534-4320
ER -