Abstract/References

Remote Orthotic Fabrication Method Using Small Three-Dimensional Printers and Computed Tomography Data: A Technical Report

Takeru Yokota, Takuya Nikaido, Masanori Abe, Yoshihiro Kikuchi, Shinichi Konno, Miho Sekiguchi, Takuya Kameda, Yojiro Takahashi, Katsuhiro Yoshida, Yasufumi Sekiguchi, Yoshihiro Matsumoto

Abstract

Introduction:Computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) methods have gained prominence in early orthotic provision. This study introduces an innovative approach using compact three-dimensional (3D) printers and computed tomography data to generate segmented body models for traditional Damen corset orthoses. The goals included evaluating the comfort and fit of orthoses and assessing the effectiveness of our approach for prosthetic companies with limited financial resources.

Materials and Methods:Lumbar and thoracolumbar orthoses were crafted via CAD/CAM. Four healthy patients wore the orthoses, with whom immediate and 1-week comfort and fit assessments were conducted. A prosthetist assessed fit, and the Japanese edition of OPUS-CSD, the Orthotics Prosthetics Users’ Survey-Client Satisfaction with Device, was used for subjective assessment of comfort and fit.

Results:The fit evaluations were satisfactory for all patients with positive predefined criteria. Questionnaire responses confirmed high satisfaction and comfort, confirming a successful orthosis fit.

Conclusion:We established an orthotic fabrication method using CAD/CAM methods with 3D printers. Additionally, we confirmed the comfort and fit of the corsets so produced. The initial cost of 3D printers is lower than that of traditional carving machines, enabling even small-scale orthotic fabrication facilities to utilize CAD/CAM methods. Further research and refinements of this manufacturing approach are expected to expand its applicability.

The content of research paper

References

1. Smith DG, Burgess EM. The use of CAD/CAM technology in prosthetics and orthotics─current clinical models and a view to the future. J Rehabil Res Dev, 38:327-334, 2001.
2. Wang Y, Tan Q, Pu F, Boone D, Zhang M. A review of the application of additive manufacturing in prosthetic and orthotic clinics from a biomechanical perspective. Engineering, 6:1258-1266, 2020.
3. Barrios-Muriel J, Romero-Sánchez F, Alonso-Sánchez FJ, Rodríguez Salgado D. Advances in orthotic and prosthetic manufacturing:a technology review. Materials (Basel), 13:295, 2020.
4. Singh U. Role of CAD-CAM technology in prosthetics and orthotics. In:Essentials of Prosthetics and Orthotics. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd, New Delhi, 86-90, 2013.
5. Anderson PA. Clinical applications of 3D printing. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 42(7):S30-S31, 2017.
6. Weiss HR, Tournavitis N, Nan X, Borysov M, Paul L. Workflow of CAD / CAM scoliosis brace adjustment in preparation using 3D printing. Open Med Inform J, 11:44-51, 2017.
7. Fujimoto Y, Sakai T, Sairyo K. What type of orthosis is optimal for conservative treatment of lumbar spondylolysis?:a biomechanical analysis. Spine Surg Relat Res, 4:74-80, 2020.
8. Jarl GM, Heinemann AW, Norling Hermansson LM. Validity evidence for a modified version of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 7:469-478, 2012.
9. Burger H, Giordano A, Mlakar M, Albensi C, Brezovar D, Franchignoni F. Cross-cultural adaptation and Rasch validation of the Slovene version of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey (OPUS) Client Satisfaction with Device (CSD) in upper-limb prosthesis users. Ann Phys Rehabil Med, 62:168-173, 2019.
10. Bruns N. Blender:Universal 3D processing and animation software (in German). Unfallchirurg, 123:747-750, 2020.
11. Sato K, Kon K, Haruna H, Mitomi N, Sato K, Kobayashi D. Creation of a Japanese version of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey-Client Satisfaction with Device and verification of its reliability and validity (in Japanese). Rigakuryoho Kagaku, 37:585-592, 2022.
12. Martínez-Velilla N, Cadore EL, Casas-Herrero Á, Idoate-Saralegui F, Izquierdo M. Physical activity and early rehabilitation in hospitalized elderly medical patients:systematic review of randomized clinical trials. J Nutr Health Aging, 20:738-751, 2016.
13. Agabegi SS, Asghar FA, Herkowitz HN. Spinal orthoses. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 18:657-667, 2010.
14. Giorgi H, Tomi F, Glard Y, Afonso D, Montanari L, Faure A. Change of vertebral orientation, between the supine position and the prone position. Spine Deform, 11:1079-1092, 2023.
15. Terai T, Yamada H, Asano K, et al. Effectiveness of three types of lumbar orthosis for restricting extension motion. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol,24 (1):239-243, 2014.
16. Kato T, Inose H, Ichimura S, et al. Comparison of rigid and soft-brace treatments for acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture:a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. J Clin Med, 8:198, 2019.
17. Wong MS. Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacture (CAD/CAM) system for construction of spinal orthosis for patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Physiother Theor Pract, 27:74-79, 2011.
18. Lou E, Ng K, Hill D. Immediate outcomes and benefits of 3D printed braces for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Front Rehabil Sci, 3:840286, 2022.

Figures