3D-Printing and upper-limb prosthetic sockets; promises and pitfalls

Abstract

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 expertise. 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.

Case Study the Benefits of Integrating 3D Printing into Prosthetics by Comparing a Traditional Manufactured Prosthesis to a 3D Manufactured Transradial Prosthesis

“…Various media reports and research papers and researchers have dedicated their time in attempting to explain their view of misconceptions with integrating 3D printing to manufacture limbs in the field of orthotics and prosthetics [1]. Although this point of view is far from reality within the medical community, the opinion still gets attention.…”

“…Although this point of view is far from reality within the medical community, the opinion still gets attention. Very few elements of digital manufacturing were introduced to clinics over thirty years ago according to [1]. This paper will focus mainly on P1 but will also add in commentary on P2 and P3 which are from [1].…”

“…Very few elements of digital manufacturing were introduced to clinics over thirty years ago according to [1]. This paper will focus mainly on P1 but will also add in commentary on P2 and P3 which are from [1]. This research paper will aim to:…”

“…Minimum prior research has been done on this topic, as well as other researchers having difficulty achieving the positive goal of the topic. In a study done by Jen Olsen et al [1], she reviewed digital prosthesis outcomes on her patients. Olsen's outcomes did turn out positive to the topic and correlated with my body of research by her discussion of why her patients preferred the digital prosthesis.…”

“…Throughout this paper, the goal was to prove that 3D printing is more beneficial than a traditionally built prosthesis by comparing the two methods through a case study. In the paper it will discuss three patients, P2 and P3 being from another source [1], and my primary patient P1. For reference, P1 represents my primary data in this research.…”