Literature DB >> 22541310

Computer-aided design of customized foot orthoses: reproducibility and effect of method used to obtain foot shape.

Scott Telfer1, Kellie S Gibson, Kym Hennessy, Martijn P Steultjens, Jim Woodburn.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine, for a number of techniques used to obtain foot shape based around plaster casting, foam box impressions, and 3-dimensional scanning, (1) the effect the technique has on the overall reproducibility of custom foot orthoses (FOs) in terms of inter- and intracaster reliability and (2) the reproducibility of FO design by using computer-aided design (CAD) software in terms of inter- and intra-CAD operator reliability for all these techniques.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: University laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of individuals (N=22) with noncavus foot types.
INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Parameters of the FO design (length, width at forefoot, width at rearfoot, and peak medial arch height), the forefoot to rearfoot angle of the foot shape, and overall volume match between device designs.
RESULTS: For intra- and intercaster reliability of the different methods of obtaining the foot shape, all methods fell below the reproducibility quality threshold for the medial arch height of the device, and volume matching was <80% for all methods. The more experienced CAD operator was able to achieve excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients >0.75) for all variables with the exception of forefoot to rearfoot angle, with overall volume matches of >87% of the devices.
CONCLUSIONS: None of the techniques for obtaining foot shape met all the criteria for excellent reproducibility, with the peak arch height being particularly variable. Additional variability is added at the CAD stage of the FO design process, although with adequate operator experience good to excellent reproducibility may be achieved at this stage. Taking only basic linear or angular measurement parameters from the device may fail to fully capture the variability in FO design.
Copyright © 2012 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22541310     DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.12.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0003-9993            Impact factor:   3.966


  10 in total

1.  Effects of Custom-made Insoles on Plantar Biomechanics and Upper Extremity Muscle Performance.

Authors:  Yi Xu; Qing-Hua Hou; Xiu-Lan Han; Chu-Huai Wang; Dong-Feng Huang
Journal:  Curr Med Sci       Date:  2021-11-30

2.  Reliability and validity of 3D limb scanning for ankle-foot orthosis fitting.

Authors:  Olivia A Powers; Jeff R Palmer; Jason M Wilken
Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 1.672

3.  Comparing 3D foot scanning with conventional measurement methods.

Authors:  Yu-Chi Lee; Gloria Lin; Mao-Jiun J Wang
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2014-10-25       Impact factor: 2.303

4.  Measurements agreement between low-cost and high-level handheld 3D scanners to scan the knee for designing a 3D printed knee brace.

Authors:  Yoann Dessery; Jari Pallari
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  A randomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis of traditional and digital foot orthoses supply chains in a National Health Service setting: application to feet at risk of diabetic plantar ulceration.

Authors:  D J Parker; G H Nuttall; N Bray; T Hugill; A Martinez-Santos; R T Edwards; C Nester
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 2.303

6.  Customized Three-Dimensional-Printed Orthopedic Close Contact Casts for the Treatment of Stable Ankle Fractures: Finite Element Analysis and a Pilot Study.

Authors:  Pengcheng Lu; Zhengwen Liao; Qing Zeng; Huan Chen; Weichun Huang; Zhen Liu; Yanjun Chen; Jing Zhong; Guozhi Huang
Journal:  ACS Omega       Date:  2021-01-24

Review 7.  Comparison of 3D scanning versus traditional methods of capturing foot and ankle morphology for the fabrication of orthoses: a systematic review.

Authors:  Muhannad Farhan; Joyce Zhanzi Wang; Paula Bray; Joshua Burns; Tegan L Cheng
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 2.303

8.  The biopsychosocial-digital continuum of foot orthosis practice and research: the VALUATOR model.

Authors:  Kevin Deschamps; Chris Nester; Veronica Newton; Gabriel Gijon-Nogueron; Engin Simsek; Antoine Brabants
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 2.303

9.  'Trial and error…', '…happy patients' and '…an old toy in the cupboard': a qualitative investigation of factors that influence practitioners in their prescription of foot orthoses.

Authors:  Anita Ellen Williams; Ana Martinez-Santos; Jane McAdam; Christopher James Nester
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 2.303

10.  Foot orthoses for people with rheumatoid arthritis: a survey of prescription habits among podiatrists.

Authors:  Lara S Chapman; Anthony C Redmond; Karl B Landorf; Keith Rome; Anne-Maree Keenan; Robin Waxman; Begonya Alcacer-Pitarch; Heidi J Siddle; Michael R Backhouse
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 2.303

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.