Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36215238›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

3D printed transtibial prosthetic sockets: A systematic review.

Sunjung Kim, Sai Yalla, Sagar Shetty, Noah J Rosenblatt

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Assessment of 3D printed mechanical metamaterials for prosthetic liners.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 3D printing and prostheses: The current state-of-the-art and future directions.Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
    Review
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

4 authors.

Sunjung KimDr. William M. Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine's Center for Lower Extremity Ambulatory Research (CLEAR), Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Sai YallaDr. William M. Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine's Center for Lower Extremity Ambulatory Research (CLEAR), Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Sagar ShettyBionic Prosthetics & Orthotics, Merrillville, Indiana, United States of America.
Noah J RosenblattDr. William M. Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine's Center for Lower Extremity Ambulatory Research (CLEAR), Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prosthetic socket, which transfers load from the residual limb to the prosthesis, is an integral part of the prosthesis. 3D printing has emerged as a potentially viable alternative to traditional fabrication for producing sockets that effectively transfer loads. We conducted a systematic review to better understand the current state of this newer fabrication method, with a focus on the structural integrity of 3D printed sockets and factors that can affect the strength of 3D printed sockets when tested using ISO 10328 standards. Literature searches were carried out in five databases (PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and Google Scholar). Two reviewers independently performed the literature selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. A total of 1023 unique studies were screened in accordance with inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of 1023 studies, 12 studies met all inclusion criteria, with failure data for 15 3D-printed sockets and 26 standard laminated sockets. Within 3D printed sockets, the addition of composite materials such as carbon fiber particles and distal reinforcement using a compositing infill technique appears to improve socket strength. In light of the considerable amount of heterogeneity between studies in terms of materials and alignment used, the absolute values for failure could not be established for 3DS nor directly compared between 3DS and LCS. However, there is some evidence that the probability of a failure at a given load may be comparable between 3DS and LCS up to the P8 level. For all sockets, whether a laminated composite socket or a 3D printed socket, failure mainly occurred at the distal end of the socket or the pyramid attachment, which is consistent with the ISO testing protocol. Improving the strength of the 3D printed sockets through design modifications at the distal end and implementing emerging printing technologies could help to promote 3D printed sockets as a viable option, particularly when cost or access to care is limited.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsCarbon FiberPrinting, Three-DimensionalProsthesis DesignCarbon Fiber

Identifiers

PMID36215238
PMCPMC9550041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.