Document Type : Original Articles
Authors
1 Department of Orthotics and Prosthetics, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
2 Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Musculoskeletal Research Centre, Isfahan Centre for Health Sciences Research, University of Salford, Salford, M5 4WT, England
Abstract
Background: 3D scanners are used to obtain three-dimensional (3D) shapes of body parts, offering an alternative to conventional techniques such as casting and a variety of potential advantages. However, 3D scanners are usually very expensive and not affordable and accessible for most orthotists and prosthetists, especially in developing countries. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of a low-cost handheld and affordable 3D scanner (3Dsystems, ‘sense’) for use in orthotics and prosthetics.
Methods: The validity and reliability of the 3D Sense scanner were assessed through repeated scanning and measurement of the predefined circumferences of the stumps of four transtibial amputees and 8 body cast models. Two assessors performed digital scanning and tape measurement on two different days, each consisting of three trials per condition/day. The reliability of the 3D sense scanner was assessed by investigating between trials, the assessors, and day reliability using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients. The standard error of measurement (SEM) was also calculated to assess measurement error. The validity of the 3D sense scanner was assessed using correlation analysis, mean percentage error (the mean differences between scanner and tape measure), and Bland-Altman statistics.
Results: The 3D Sense scanner provides stumps and body cast model measurements with similar reliability to the tape measure. Reliability coefficients for the 3D scanner are relatively high (ICC). The ICCs all are near 1.0 and SEMs all range from 0.06 to 0.10. The 3D Sense scanner demonstrated excellent validity. There was a significant positive correlation between the 3D scanner and tape measure for both stumps and body cast models measurements (r > 0.850; p < 0.0001). The measurement error between the 3D scanner and tape measure is very low as indicated by mean differences close to zero.
Conclusions: This study introduces a low-cost handheld and affordable 3D scanner, which has proven to be a valid and reliable clinical tool in orthotics and prosthetics. This 3D scanner would have extensive and powerful clinical applicability resulting in valid and reliable digital information of body segments for computer-aided design (CAD) of orthotics and prosthetics.
Keywords
2. World Health Organization. Guidelines for training personnel in developing countries for prosthetics and orthotics services; 2005.
3. Román-Casares, A.M., O. García-Gómez, and E. Guerado.Prosthetic Limb Design and Function: Latest Innovations and Functional Results. Curr Trauma Rep, 2018; 4(4):262-256.
4. Dombroski, C.E., M.E.R. Balsdon, A. Froats. The use of a low cost 3D scanning and printing tool in the manufacture of custom-made foot orthoses: A preliminary study. BMC Res Notes, 2014; 7(1).
5. Carroll M., M. Annabell, K. Rome. Reliability of capturing foot parameters using digital scanning and the neutral suspension casting technique. J Foot Ankle Res, 2011; 4(1).
6. M. Geil. Consistency, precision and accuracy of optical and electromagnetic shape-capturing systems for digital measurement of residual-limb anthropometrics of persons with transtibial amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2007; 44(4): 524-515.
7. Dessery, Y. and J. Pallari. Measurements agreement between low-cost and high-level handheld 3D scanners to scan the knee for designing a 3D printed knee brace. PLoS ONE, 2018; 13(1): 3-2.
8. Sense™ 3DScanner user guide [homepage on the Internet]. 2014; Available from: https://www.3dsystems.com/shop/support/sense/downloads.
9. Forghany, S., et al. The influence of staff training and education on prosthetic and orthotic service quality: A scoping review.Prosthet Orthot Int, 2018; 42(3): 264-258.
10. World Health Organization. World report on disability 2011; 2011.11. Dickinson, A.S., et al. Registering methodology for imaging and analysis of residual-limb shape after transtibial amputation.J Rehabil Res Dev, 2016; 53(2): 218-207.
12. L. Armitage, L.K. Kwah, L. Kark. Reliability and validity of the iSense optical scanner for measuring volume of transtibial residual limb models. Prosthet Orthot Int, 2019; 43(2): 220-213.
13. Seminati, E., et al. Validity and reliability of a novel 3D scanner for assessment of the shape and volume of amputees ’ residual limb models. PLoS ONE, 2017; 16-1.
14. Z. Taha, et al. A low cost 3D foot scanner for custom-made sports shoes. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 2014; 440: 372-369.
15. Giancola, S., M. Valenti, R. Sala. A Survey on 3D Cameras:Metrological Comparison of Time-of-Flight, Structured-Light and Active Stereoscopy Technologies. 2018; Springer.
16. N. Cau, et al. Circumferential versus hand-held laser scanner method for the evaluation of lower limb volumes in normal-weight and obese subjects. J Nov Physiother, 2016; 6(303): 2.
17. J.M. Zuniga, et al. Technical and Clinical Considerations for the Development of 3D Printed Upper-Limb Prostheses for Pediatric Patients. 3d Printing Conference Innovation, Modelling,Application & Implementation, 2017.
)