A Lightweight Linear Actuating System for Finger Articulation: A Proof-of-Concept Study

Chizhik, Daniel; Hejrati, Babak

doi:10.1109/icorr.2019.8779406

Cited by 1 publication

(16 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Chu et al 31 used 3D printing to fabricate a customized short thumb orthosis, in which the authors state can be used in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the first carpometacarpal joint. Chizhik and Hejrati 29 3D-printed components for a lightweight finger articulated actuating system. The authors suggest that chronic diseases, specifically arthritis, are indications for use of their actuating system to allow for an effective functional grasp 29 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chizhik and Hejrati 29 3D-printed components for a lightweight finger articulated actuating system. The authors suggest that chronic diseases, specifically arthritis, are indications for use of their actuating system to allow for an effective functional grasp 29 . Matthews-Brownell and Hall 43 used 3D-printed UL orthoses to treat veterans with hand impairments.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two other studies 29,42 indicate the use of 3D printing for neurological disorders. Chizhik and Hejrati 29 stated that their 3D-printed finger articulated actuating system would be suited for neurological disorders, although the authors did not specify which disorders the device would be best suited for. Lee et al 42 designed a customized 3D-printed arm-wrist-hand orthosis for an individual after brain injury.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the indications presented, the most common indications for 3D-printed UL orthotic use discussed in the articles were neurological disorders and traumatic injuries, mainly referring to spinal cord injuries, 25,32,45,53 strokes, 25,28,39,43,47,50,54 and various forearm/wrist fractures 20,26,33–36,38,40,41,49,52 . Of the 33 articles, 22 of the articles 5,18,20,26,27,30,31,33–36,38,40–42,44,46,49–52,54 suggested 3D-printed static orthoses, nine articles 25,28,29,32,37,39,45,47,53 indicated various types of dynamic orthoses, and two of the articles 43,48 did not specify the type of orthosis. These articles also identified populations that were determined appropriate for their specific 3D-printed orthoses.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinically, there are many factors to consider. Effectiveness to help achieve outcomes, patient satisfaction, patient safety, and patient compliance are just a few that should be weighed as advantages and disadvantages 18,27,29,30,38,39,42,44,46,52 . It is unclear as to the effectiveness of 3D-printed orthoses for the UL.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Additive Manufacturing and Upper-Limb Orthoses: A Scoping Review

Gehner

Lunsford

2023

J Prosthet Orthot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Additive manufacturing has the potential to revolutionize the orthotic fabrication process for health professionals. Although there is evidence to suggest the benefits of additive manufacturing in rehabilitation-related fields, there is still fairly limited evidence supporting the use of 3D-printed orthoses as an effective and feasible alternative to manually fabricated devices used for the upper limb (UL). The purpose of this scoping review was to examine how 3D printers are currently being used in UL orthotic fabrication within the scope of rehabilitation professionals. Methods: A literature search was conducted using five databases from 2011 to 2021. Two independent researchers reviewed the abstracts and full text of the articles. The PRISMA process was used to report findings, and data extraction and charting were completed according to the JBI-suggested scoping review protocol. Results: Thirty-three studies were reviewed as determined by inclusion criteria from various disciplines and countries. Eight diagnostic categories identifying indications for use were derived from the studies including arthritic conditions, burns/contractures and wound care, finger deformities, neurological and neuromuscular disorders, and traumatic, strain, and nerve injuries. Both benefits and challenges are identified with the use of 3D-printed orthoses. Conclusions: The scope of the 3D-printed orthoses produced in this review is broad and internationally widespread. More evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of 3D-printed orthoses for each of the identified conditions, but the benefits outside of healing are obvious. The current state of the evidence suggests that this technology remains exploratory in respect to UL orthoses and is therefore not yet ready to be implemented in clinics. With appropriate supports and more evidence, 3D printing still has the potential to revolutionize the UL orthotic fabrication process. Clinical Relevance: It may be unrealistic for rehabilitation professionals to design and fabricate 3D-printed orthoses without the proper education or time, but it is important for health care professionals to have an emphasized presence in this conversation, as it is their responsibility to treat the patients. This suggests that co-design, combining professionals' expertise, might be the best approach to fabricating these devices for patients. (

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%