Author:
Oud Tanja,Bogaards Johannes A.,Nollet Frans,Brehm Merel-Anne
Abstract
Objective: To assess the preliminary effectiveness of three-dimensional printed orthoses compared with conventionally custom-fabricated orthoses in persons with chronic hand conditions on performance of daily activities, hand function, quality of life, satisfaction, and production time and costs.
Design: Interventional feasibility study.
Subjects: Chronic hand orthotic users (n = 21).
Methods: Participants received a new three-dimensional printed orthosis according to the same type as their current orthosis, which served as the control condition. Primary outcome was performance of daily activities (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System–Upper Extremity; Michigan Hand Questionnaire). Secondary outcomes were hand function, quality of life, and satisfaction. Furthermore, production time and costs were recorded.
Results: At 4 months’ follow-up, no significant differences were found between three-dimensional printed orthoses and participants’ existing conventional orthoses on activity performance, hand function, and quality of life. Satisfaction with the three-dimensional printed orthosis was significantly higher and the production time and costs for three-dimensional printed orthoses were significantly lower compared with conventional orthoses. The three-dimensional printed orthosis was preferred by 79% of the participants.
Conclusions: This feasibility study in chronic hand conditions suggests that three-dimensional printed orthoses are similar to conventional orthoses in terms of activity performance, hand function, and quality of life. Satisfaction, and production time and costs favoured the three-dimensional printed hand orthoses.
Publisher
MJS Publishing, Medical Journals Sweden AB
Reference58 articles.
1. Supan TJ. Chapter 4: Principles of fabrication. In: Hsu JD MJ, Fisk R., editor. AAOS atlas of orthoses and assistive devices. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier; 2008. p. 53–59.
2. Jacobs M, Coverdale J. Concepts of Orthotic Fundamentals. In: Jacobs M, Austin N, edi-tors. Orthotic intervention for the hand and upper extremity: splinting principles and process. Second ed. Baltimore, Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014. p. 2–25.
3. Becker SJ, Bot AG, Curley SE, Jupiter JB, Ring D. A prospective randomized comparison of neoprene vs thermoplast hand-based thumb spica splinting for trapeziometacarpal ar-throsis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013; 21: 668–675.
4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.02.006
5. Pizzi A, Carlucci G, Falsini C, Verdesca S, Grippo A. Application of a volar static splint in poststroke spasticity of the upper limb. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 1855–1859.