Researchers conducted a study with individuals who have lower-limb amputations to determine the effects of conventional cosmetic covers compared to 3D-printed cosmetic covers as it related to the users’ satisfaction and psychosocial wellbeing. The results suggested that cosmetic cover design had significant effects, and the variance between participants indicated diverse preferences.
The study included transtibial and transfemoral prosthesis users who were randomly assigned into two groups. One group was fitted with a foam cosmesis with a nylon stocking. The other received a 3D-printed cosmetic cover. Cosmeses were worn for 12 weeks before being switched to the alternate design. Outcomes related to satisfaction and psychosocial wellbeing for Amputation Body Image Scale-Revised (ABIS-R), the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES), and Quality, Utilization, Effectiveness, Statistically Tabulation (QUEST) were collected on three occasions. Linear mixed effects models assessed for differences between the cosmetic covers.
Ten participants completed all outcome measures on three occasions. The researchers observed significant differences in favor of the 3D-printed cosmesis for TAPES general psychosocial adjustment, TAPES aesthetic satisfaction, and ABIS-R. Adjustment to physical limitations were higher for the foam cover. No differences were observed in QUEST scores. Covariates of age, time since amputation, and extroversion did not have any significant effects, the study found.
The open-access study, “Effects of conventional versus 3D-printed cosmetic covers on user satisfaction and psychosocial well-being in lower limb prostheses users: A randomized crossover trial” was published in the Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering.
