Researchers conducted a study that, in addition to evaluating the effects of prescribing a traditional foam cosmetic cover versus a more recently developed 3D-printed cosmetic cover, also considered the satisfaction and psychosocial well-being of prosthesis users.
As part of the study, transtibial and transfemoral prosthesis users were randomly assigned into two groups. One group was fitted with a foam cosmesis with a nylon stocking while 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 well-being—the Amputee Body Image Scale-Revised (ABIS-R), Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experiences Scales (TAPES), and Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (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. Significant differences in favor of the 3D-printed cosmesis were observed 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. Researchers also found that covariates of age, time since amputation, and extroversion did not appear to have any significant effects.
Results of the study suggested that cosmetic cover design can significantly affect prosthesis users’ psychosocial well-being and satisfaction with aesthetic appearance. The variance between participants was high, indicating diverse preferences, 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.
