scholarly journals HOW INFILL PERCENTAGE AFFECTS THE ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF A 3D-PRINTED TRANSTIBIAL SOCKET

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leah Campbell ◽  
Adriel Lau ◽  
Brittany Pousett ◽  
Ernie Janzen ◽  
Silvia U Raschke
Keyword(s):  
3D Printing ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Ultimate Strength ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Weight Bearing ◽  
Initial Contact ◽  
National Assembly ◽  
Ensure Patient Safety ◽  
3D Printed

INTRODUCTION 3D printing for non‐weight‐bearing upper extremity prostheses is becoming increasingly popular as a method of fabrication.1 Some clinics in North America have begun using 3D printing to fabricate lower extremity diagnostic sockets (Figure 1). The strength requirements for upper extremity prostheses are not as rigorous as the strength requirements for lower extremity prostheses. Therefore, strength testing on 3D-printed lower extremity sockets is one of the first steps that needs to be conducted to ensure patient safety. 3D-printed prosthetic sockets are becoming an alternative option to traditional methods because it is possible to customize different parameters to create a strong structure. Infill percentage is an important parameter to research as this can have an influence on the strength of 3D printed sockets.2 As both prosthetists and healthcare professionals, there is a need to become more involved in the process of designing and testing 3D printed sockets. The purpose of this study is to test how changing the infill percentage affects the ultimate strength of a 3D printed transtibial socket during initial contact. Abstract PDF  Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/32038/24453 How to cite: Campbell L, Lau A, Pousett B, Janzen E, Raschke S.U.  HOW INFILL PERCENTAGE AFFECTS THE ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF A 3D-PRINTED TRANSTIBIAL SOCKET. CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2, 2018; ABSTRACT, POSTER PRESENTATION AT THE AOPA’S 101ST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, SEPT. 26-29, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 2018.  DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32038 Abstracts were Peer-reviewed by the American Orthotic Prosthetic Association (AOPA) 101st National Assembly Scientific Committee.  http://www.aopanet.org/

scholarly journals HOW INFILL PERCENTAGE AFFECTS THE ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF 3D-PRINTED TRANSTIBIAL SOCKETS DURING INITIAL CONTACT

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leah Campbell ◽  
Adriel Lau ◽  
Brittany Pousett ◽  
Ernie Janzen ◽  
Silvia U Raschke
Keyword(s):  
3D Printing ◽  
Ultimate Strength ◽  
Compressive Force ◽  
Initial Contact ◽  
Strength Testing ◽  
Iso Standard ◽  
International Standard ◽  
Fused Deposition ◽  
Prosthetic Socket ◽  
3D Printed

BACKGROUND: 3D printing is becoming more popular across many industries. The first step to safely introducing 3D printed sockets in to prosthetics is to conduct strength testing on these sockets. PURPOSE: This study tests how changing the infill percentage (the percentage of material between the internal and external socket wall) affects the strength of 3D-printed transtibial sockets. METHODS: A Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) printer was used to print a total of nine transtibial (TT) sockets (three sockets at 30% infill, three sockets at 40% infill, and three sockets at 50%) using polylactic acid (PLA). A strength-testing apparatus measured, in Newtons (N), the maximum load the 3D-printed transtibial sockets could withstand at initial contact of the gait cycle. RESULTS: Based on the specific criteria outlined in this research project, all nine sockets exceeded the 4480N threshold set by ISO Standard 10328. Eight out of nine sockets failed at approximately double the force required with one socket (socket #2) failing at 5360N. Seven out of nine sockets failed at the medial popliteal region and two out of nine sockets failed at lateral mid socket region. Differences in infill percentage from 30%, 40%, 50% did not appear to influence strength of sockets. CONCLUSION: Strength of 3D-printed TT sockets needs rigorous testing to be deemed safe for patient use. More definitive research and a higher number of samples are required to investigate how a larger range of infill percentage can affect strength. Until all the requirements of ISO Standard 10328 are satisfied, the safety of using 3D-printed TT sockets in clinical practice are uncertain. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/30843/23262 LAYMAN’S ABSTRACT 3D printing is beginning to be used in prosthetics because it has the potential to be less expensive and more customizable to individual needs and styles. Unfortunately, there are companies using this technology to print prosthetic sockets for people without the proper education and training. Before people can start using this new technology safely, testing needs to be done to determine the strength of these 3D printed prosthetic sockets. Our project investigates how strong a 3D printed prosthetic socket is for an amputee below the knee. This is challenging because the entire weight will be put through the socket and it needs to be strong enough that it will not break. There is an international standard that gives instructions and information on testing the strength of a prosthetic socket. Our project will follow a part of these instructions and see how much weight can be put through a socket before it breaks. Our project printed nine identical prosthetic sockets, but the infill percentage of each socket was different. The infill percentage is the amount of material between the walls of an object. We put each socket in a machine and applied a compressive force until it broke and measured that force. Our tests showed the infill percentage did not change the strength of the sockets. They all passed the force measurement given by the international standard. Because our project only tested a part of the standard, there are many more tests that need to be done before the public can start using 3D-printed prosthetic sockets safely. How to Cite: Campbell L, Lau A, Pousett B, Janzen E, Raschke S.U. How infill percentage affects the ultimate strength of 3D-printed transtibial sockets during initial contact. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal, Volume 1, Issue 2, No 2, 2018. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.30843

scholarly journals ORTHOPEDIC INJURIES IN ADOLESCENT GYMNASTS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7_suppl3) ◽  
pp. 2325967121S0011
Author(s):  
Katie Kim ◽  
Michael Saper
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Weight Bearing ◽  
The Body ◽  
Adolescent And Young Adult ◽  
Body Region ◽  
Lower Extremity Injuries ◽  
Common Location ◽  
Orthopedic Injuries ◽  
Extremity Injuries

Background: Gymnastics exposes the body to many different types of stressors ranging from repetitive motion, high impact loading, extreme weight bearing, and hyperextension. These stressors predispose the spine and upper and lower extremities to injury. In fact, among female sports, gymnastics has the highest rate of injury each year. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on location and types of orthopedic injuries in adolescent (≤20 years) gymnasts. Methods: The Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, EBSCO (CINAHL) and Web of Science databases were systematically searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify all studies reporting orthopedic injuries in adolescent and young adult gymnasts. All aspects of injuries were extracted and analyzed including location, type and rates of orthopedic injuries. Results: Screening yielded 22 eligible studies with a total of 427,225 patients. Twenty of 22 studies reported upper extremity injuries of which four specifically focused on wrist injuries. Eight studies reported lower extremity injuries. Nine studies reported back/spinal injuries. Seven studies investigated each body location of injury; one study reported the upper extremity as the most common location for injury and six studies reported the lower extremity as the most common location for injury. Of those seven studies, five (23%) reported sprains and strains as the most common injury. One study reported fractures as the most common injury. Conclusion: There is considerable variation in reported injury location. Some studies focused specifically on the spine/back or wrist. The type of gymnastics each patient participated in was also different, contributing to which area of the body was more heavily stressed, or lacking. Current literature lacks data to fully provide evidence regarding which body region is more frequently injured and the type of injury sustained.

scholarly journals AN INVESTIGATION OF THE STRUCTURAL STRENGTH OF TRANSTIBIAL SOCKETS FABRICATED USING CONVENTIONAL METHODS AND RAPID PROTOTYPING TECHNIQUES

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brittany Pousett ◽  
Aimee Lizcano ◽  
Silvia Ursula Raschke
Keyword(s):  
3D Printing ◽  
Rapid Prototyping ◽  
Ultimate Strength ◽  
Stance Phase ◽  
Structural Strength ◽  
Static Strength ◽  
Strength Test ◽  
Manufacturing Method ◽  
Strength Tests ◽  
3D Printed

BACKGROUND: Rapid Prototyping is becoming an accessible manufacturing method but before clinical adoption can occur, the safety of treatments needs to be established. Previous studies have evaluated the static strength of traditional sockets using ultimate strength testing protocols outlined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). OBJECTIVE: To carry out a pilot test in which 3D printed sockets will be compared to traditionally fabricated sockets, by applying a static ultimate strength test. METHODOLOGY: 36 sockets were made from a mold of a transtibial socket shape,18 for cushion liners with a distal socket attachment block and 18 for locking liners with a distal 4-hole pattern. Of the 18 sockets, 6 were thermoplastic, 6 laminated composites & 6 3D printed Polylactic Acid. Sockets were aligned in standard bench alignment and placed in a testing jig that applied forces simulating individuals of different weight putting force through the socket both early and late in the stance phase. Ultimate strength tests were conducted in these conditions. If a setup passed the ultimate strength test, load was applied until failure. FINDINGS: All sockets made for cushion liners passed the strength tests, however failure levels and methods varied. For early stance, thermoplastic sockets yielded, laminated sockets cracked posteriorly, and 3D printed socket broke circumferen-tially. For late stance, 2/3 of the sockets failed at the pylon. Sockets made for locking liners passed the ultimate strength tests early in stance phase, however, none of the sockets passed for forces late in stance phase, all broke around the lock mechanism.  CONCLUSION: Thermoplastic, laminated and 3D printed sockets made for cushion liners passed the ultimate strength test protocol outlined by the ISO for forces applied statically in gait. This provides initial evidence that 3D printed sockets are statically safe to use on patients and quantifies the static strength of laminated and thermoplastic sockets. However, all set-ups of sockets made for locking liners failed at terminal stance. While further work is needed, this suggests that the distal reinforcement for thermoplastic, laminated and 3D printed sockets with distal cylindrical locks may need to be reconsidered. LAYMAN’S ABSTRACT 3D printing is a new manufacturing method that could be used to make prosthetic sockets (the part of the prosthesis connected to the individual). However, very little is known about the strength of 3D printed sockets and if they are safe to use. As Prosthetists are responsible for providing patients with safe treatments, the strength of 3D printed sockets needs to be established before they can be used in clinical practice. The strength of sockets made using current manufacturing methods was compared to those made using 3D printing. Strength was tested using the static portion of the ISO standard most applicable for this situation which outlines the forces a socket must take at 2 points in walking–when the foot is placed on the ground (early stance) and when the foot pushed off the ground (late stance). Sockets made for two prosthetic designs (cushion and locking) were tested to determine if one is safer than the other. All sockets made for cushion liners passed the standard for forces applied statically. However, different materials failed in different ways. At early stance, thermoplastic sockets yielded, laminated composite sockets cracked and 3D printed sockets broke circumferentially. At late stance other components failed 2/3 of the time before the sockets were affected. This provides initial evidence that sockets made for cushion liners are statically safe to use on patients. Sockets made for locking liners failed around the end, showing that 3D printing should not be used to create sockets with the design tested in this study. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/31008/24937 How to Cite: Pousett B, Lizcano A, Raschke S.U. An investigation of the structural strength of transtibial sockets fabricated using conventional methods and rapid prototyping techniques. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2019; Volume2, Issue1, No.2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v2i1.31008 CORRESPONDING AUTHORBrittany Pousett, BSc, MSc, Certified Prosthetist,Head of Research at Barber Prosthetics Clinic,540 SE Marine Dr, Vancouver, British Colombia V5X 2T4, Canada.Email: [email protected]

Loading modalities and bone structures at nonweight-bearing upper extremity and weight-bearing lower extremity: A pQCT study of adult female athletes

Bone ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 886-894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riku Nikander ◽  
Harri Sievänen ◽  
Kirsti Uusi-Rasi ◽  
Ari Heinonen ◽  
Pekka Kannus
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Adult Female ◽  
Female Athletes ◽  
Weight Bearing ◽  
Bone Structures

scholarly journals USER EXPERIENCES WITH TRADITIONAL AND 3D-PRINTED UPPER EXTREMITY PROSTHESES, DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Mankoff ◽  
Saiph Savage ◽  
Sydney Eckert ◽  
Chelsea Ngo ◽  
Goeran Fiedler
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Survey Instrument ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
User Experiences ◽  
National Assembly ◽  
Comprehensive Survey ◽  
3D Printed ◽  
Upper Limb Prosthetics

INTRODUCTION Additive Manufacturing (AM), colloquial known as 3D-printing, has been deemed capable to revolutionize a great number of industries, including the Health Care industry.1 In the field of upper limb prosthetics, it has been attempted to leverage the potential advantages of AM, such as crowd based design optimization, infrastructure independent fabrication, and economical material use, in the interest of providing low-cost, readily available devices to recipients whose needs were only insufficiently met by traditional approaches of device prescription and fitting. While the popular media has been quick to emphasize the potential – perceived or real – of 3D printed prostheses, clinicians have generally been less euphoric and the base of scientific evidence on questions related to these applications has been small.2 As with most research endeavors in prosthetics and orthotics, recruiting sufficient sample sizes to allow solid conclusions is a perennial challenge also in this sub-field. As a consequence, the effectiveness of the many 3D-printed upper limb devices made by volunteers of the E-nable community (Fig.1) is yet to be determined. Self-reported outcome assessment tools can somewhat mitigate the issue of low sample sizes. However, none have been applied to a wider range of device classes, to allow comparative analyses across those. We describe the development and preliminary testing of an online based survey tool to generate comparison outcome data for a wide variety of upper limb prosthetics devices, including varieties that are 3D-printed by hobbyists. Abstract PDF  Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/32009/24428 How to cite: Mankoff  J, Savage S, Eckert S, Ngo C, Fiedler G. USER EXPERIENCES WITH TRADITIONAL AND 3D-PRINTED UPPER EXTREMITY PROSTHESES, DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY INSTRUMENT. CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2, 2018; ABSTRACT, POSTER PRESENTATION AT THE AOPA’S 101ST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, SEPT. 26-29, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32009                                                                            Abstracts were Peer-reviewed by the American Orthotic Prosthetic Association (AOPA) 101st National Assembly Scientific Committee.  http://www.aopanet.org/  

scholarly journals Benefits and Prerequisites Associated with the Adoption of Oral 3D-Printed Medicines for Pediatric Patients: A Focus Group Study among Healthcare Professionals

Pharmaceutics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Rautamo ◽  
Kirsi Kvarnström ◽  
Mia Sivén ◽  
Marja Airaksinen ◽  
Pekka Lahdenne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
3D Printing ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Focus Group Study ◽  
Drug Products ◽  
Drug Substances ◽  
3D Printed

The utilization of three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies as innovative manufacturing methods for drug products has recently gained growing interest. From a technological viewpoint, proof-of-concept on the performance of different printing methods already exist, followed by visions about future applications in hospital or community pharmacies. The main objective of this study was to investigate the perceptions of healthcare professionals in a tertiary university hospital about oral 3D-printed medicines for pediatric patients by means of focus group discussions. In general, the healthcare professionals considered many positive aspects and opportunities in 3D printing of pharmaceuticals. A precise dose as well as personalized doses and dosage forms were some of the advantages mentioned by the participants. Especially in cases of polypharmacy, incorporating several drug substances into one product to produce a polypill, personalized regarding both the combination of drug substances and the doses, would benefit drug treatments of several medical conditions and would improve adherence to medications. In addition to the positive aspects, concerns and prerequisites for the adoption of 3D printing technologies at hospital settings were also expressed. These perspectives are suggested by the authors to be focus points for future research on personalized 3D-printed drug products.

Combining Values

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Proximal Phalanx ◽  
Common Error ◽  
The Third ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Spinal Cord Injuries ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Treatment Results ◽  
Standard Terminology ◽  
Made In

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.

Biodegradable 3D Printed Polymer Microneedles for Transdermal Drug Delivery

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Luzuriaga ◽  
Danielle R. Berry ◽  
John C. Reagan ◽  
Ronald A. Smaldone ◽  
Jeremiah J. Gassensmith
Keyword(s):  
Drug Delivery ◽  
3D Printing ◽  
Transdermal Drug Delivery ◽  
Fused Deposition Modeling ◽  
Fused Deposition ◽  
Modeling Software ◽  
Deposition Modeling ◽  
3D Printed ◽  
Microfabrication Technique ◽  
Mechanical Strengths

Biodegradable polymer microneedle (MN) arrays are an emerging class of transdermal drug delivery devices that promise a painless and sanitary alternative to syringes; however, prototyping bespoke needle architectures is expensive and requires production of new master templates. Here, we present a new microfabrication technique for MNs using fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printing using polylactic acid, an FDA approved, renewable, biodegradable, thermoplastic material. We show how this natural degradability can be exploited to overcome a key challenge of FDM 3D printing, in particular the low resolution of these printers. We improved the feature size of the printed parts significantly by developing a post fabrication chemical etching protocol, which allowed us to access tip sizes as small as 1 μm. With 3D modeling software, various MN shapes were designed and printed rapidly with custom needle density, length, and shape. Scanning electron microscopy confirmed that our method resulted in needle tip sizes in the range of 1 – 55 µm, which could successfully penetrate and break off into porcine skin. We have also shown that these MNs have comparable mechanical strengths to currently fabricated MNs and we further demonstrated how the swellability of PLA can be exploited to load small molecule drugs and how its degradability in skin can release those small molecules over time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document