Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35641072›Full record

ArticleMedical engineering & physics2022

A novel workflow to fabricate a patient-specific 3D printed accommodative foot orthosis with personalized latticed metamaterial.

Yuri F Hudak, Jing-Sheng Li, Scott Cullum, Brian M Strzelecki, Chris Richburg, G Eli Kaufman, Daniel Abrahamson, Jeffrey T Heckman, Beth Ripley, Scott Telfer and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical engineering & physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Durability and offloading performance of 3D-printed multilayer lattice for accommodative insoles.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Static and dynamic optimisation of fluid-filled responsive orthotic insoles.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. 3D Printing of Individual Running Insoles - A Case Study.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Yuri F HudakVA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and MoBility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Jing-Sheng LiVA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and MoBility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Scott CullumVA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and MoBility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Brian M StrzeleckiVA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and MoBility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, United States.
Chris RichburgVA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and MoBility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, United States.
G Eli KaufmanVA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and MoBility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, United States.
Daniel AbrahamsonVA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and MoBility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, United States.
Jeffrey T HeckmanJames A. Haley Veterans' Hospital & Clinics, Tampa, FL, United States; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States.
Beth RipleyDepartment of Radiology, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA ,United States.
Scott TelferDepartment of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
William R LedouxVA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and MoBility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Brittney C MuirVA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and MoBility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. Electronic address: bcmuir@uw.edu.
Patrick M AubinVA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and MoBility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Funding

Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research & Development Center for Limb Loss and MoBility (CLiMB)I50RX002357 · VA · VA PUGET SOUND HEALTHCARE SYSTEM · PI Glenn Klute, William R. Ledoux · 2017 to 2027
–
Design and Evaluation of a Biarticular Prosthesis to Reduce Gait CompensationsIK2RX002130 · VA · VA PUGET SOUND HEALTHCARE SYSTEM · PI AUBIN, PATRICK MARK · 2017 to 2020
–
RRD VA I01 RX003539RRD VA I50 RX002357RRD VA IK2 RX002130
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with diabetes mellitus are at elevated risk for secondary complications that result in lower extremity amputations. Standard of care to prevent these complications involves prescribing custom accommodative insoles that use inefficient and outdated fabrication processes including milling and hand carving. A new thrust of custom 3D printed insoles has shown promise in producing corrective insoles but has not explored accommodative diabetic insoles. Our novel contribution is a metamaterial design application that allows the insole stiffness to vary regionally following patient-specific plantar pressure measurements. We presented a novel workflow to fabricate custom 3D printed elastomeric insoles, a testing method to evaluate the durability, shear stiffness, and compressive stiffness of insole material samples, and a case study to demonstrate how the novel 3D printed insoles performed clinically. Our 3D printed insoles results showed a matched or improved durability, a reduced shear stiffness, and a reduction in plantar pressure in clinical case study compared to standard of care insoles.

Indexed as

Foot OrthosesHumansPressurePrinting, Three-DimensionalShoesWorkflowAccommodative foot orthosisAdditive manufacturingDurabilityFoot ulcerationMechanical propertiesPersonalized medicinePlantar pressureShear stiffness

Identifiers

PMID35641072
PMCPMC9210925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.