ArticleNeurospine2026
Comparative Accuracy Assessment of Thoraco-Lumbo-Sacral Orthosis Fabrication: Conventional Contact Casting Versus Noncontact 3-Dimensional Digital Scanning.
Article in Neurospine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Contact casting with plaster bandages is a standard technique for thoraco-lumbo-sacral orthosis (TLSO) fabrication. However, this hands-on process depends on the operator's skill as well as requires a close physical contact, involving potential risks of coronavirus and influenza virus infection and the patient's personal space violation. Recently, noncontact, highly accurate molding technology using 3-dimensional (3D) digital scanning has been developed. Although 3D scanning is widely applied for limb orthosis, its spinal application mainly focuses on pediatric scoliosis. Comparative studies across diverse body types remain limited. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the adaptability, accuracy, and fabrication time of TLSO produced using noncontact 3D digital scanning, comparing with conventional contact plaster-bandage casting. Methods: TLSO was fabricated using both contact and noncontact techniques for mannequins with 4 different body types. High-precision scanner and computed tomography (CT) were used to assess the shape reproducibility by quantifying the gap area between the orthosis and mannequin. In addition, total fabrication time was compared between the 2 techniques. Results: High-precision scanner identified that 3D scanning showed a higher shape reproducibility than conventional casting, particularly in curvilinear areas (all p<0.001). In CT measurement, 3D scanning demonstrated a smaller gap area in all the body types (all p<0.001). Fabrication time was also shorter during 3D scanning (54.9±0.9 minutes) than during conventional casting (100.0±5.5 minutes) (p<0.001). Conclusion: Noncontact 3D digital scanning facilitates a rapid, accurate, and reproducible TLSO fabrication across diverse body types, providing a safer and more efficient alternative to conventional contact plaster-bandage casting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.