Fabrication of transfemoral prosthesis utilizing additive manufacturing and reverse engineering: a scoping review
International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, ISSN: 1955-2505, Vol: 18, Issue: 6, Page: 3613-3631
2024
- 4Citations
- 29Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Review Description
Prosthetic rehabilitation refers to the process of restoring or improving a patient's physical function, appearance, and quality of life through the use of prosthetic devices. Providing cost-effective prosthetic rehabilitation for transfemoral amputees remains a challenging task. Traditional prosthetic fabrication methods, such as casting and lamination, are expensive and prone to fitting errors. Moreover, these methods are time-consuming, labor-intensive, and lack data-driven precision, heavily relying on artisanal expertise for socket fitting. However, recent advancements in rapid prototyping technologies, in conjunction with Reverse Engineering through 3D scanners, offer a promising alternative. This scoping review explores the current state of knowledge in transfemoral prosthesis fabrication, with a focus on additive manufacturing (AM), RE, and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) methods. A systematic database search on PubMed and LENS.ORG was conducted, followed by a thorough analysis of selected articles. The review highlights major research areas, including pressure/stress/strain distribution analysis at the socket-stump interface, gait cycle assessment, and developments in 3D printing of knee and ankle joints. Critical appraisals of each article provide valuable insights for future research and advancements in affordable prosthetic rehabilitation. In conclusion, the utilization of AM, RE, and CAM methods for TFP fabrication is in its infancy but holds immense potential for improving cost-effective solutions in this domain.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know