A team of researchers set out to evaluate the usability of completing adjustments on 3D-printed versus traditionally fabricated AFOs. The participating orthotists’ offered perspectives on the advantages, disadvantages, and similarities of adjusting 3D-printed materials, and they identified potential solutions for the disadvantages.
The study concluded that 3D-printed orthoses were more difficult to adjust and had lower usability for adjustment compared with traditional ones, but the orthotists felt that they would be able to use the material in clinical practice with some of the proposed solutions.
Ten certified orthotists performed a sequence of predetermined adjustment tasks on 3D-printed AFOs. The Single Ease Question and the System Usability Scale compared the traditional and 3D-printed AFO adjustments. The researchers also conducted semistructured interviews and identified key themes.
The results indicated that the Single Ease Question scores were significantly lower for 3D-printed adjustments in 50 percent of tasks. The mean System Usability Scale total score was significantly lower for tasks completed on 3D-printed AFOs compared to traditional AFOs.
The thematic analysis identified challenges related to aesthetics, heating, grinding, brittleness, and timing of adjustments. Several similarities and some minor benefits were also noted. Despite challenges, the orthotists demonstrated optimism about the 3D-printing material and proposed several solutions for improvement, including optimizing techniques and introducing postprocessing.
The study, “Orthotists’ perspectives on the adjustment of 3D printed ankle foot orthoses: A mixed methods feasibility study,” was published in Prosthetics and Orthotics International.
