Preliminary effectiveness and production time and costs of three-dimensional printed orthoses in chronic hand conditions: an interventional feasibility study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v56.39946Keywords:
Feasibility study, Hand, Orthotic Devices, printing, three-dimensional, Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAbstract
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.
Downloads
References
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.
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.
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.02.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.02.006
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.032 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.032
Videler A, Eijffinger E, Nollet F, Beelen A. A thumb opposition splint to improve manual dexterity and upper-limb functioning in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. J Rehabil Med 2012; 44: 249–253.
https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0932 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0932
Oud TAM, Lazzari E, Gijsbers HJH, Gobbo M, Nollet F, Brehm MA. Effectiveness of 3D-printed orthoses for traumatic and chronic hand conditions: a scoping review. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0260271.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260271 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260271
Schwartz DA, Schofield KA. Utilization of 3D printed orthoses for musculoskeletal condi-tions of the upper extremity: a systematic review. J Hand Ther 2023; 36: 166–178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2021.10.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2021.10.005
Barrios-Muriel J, Romero-Sanchez F, Alonso-Sanchez FJ, Rodriguez Salgado D. Advances in orthotic and prosthetic manufacturing: a technology review. Materials 2020; 13: 295.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13020295 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13020295
Oud T, Kerkum Y, de Groot P, Gijsbers H, Nollet F, Brehm MA. Production time and user satisfaction of 3-dimensional printed orthoses for chronic hand conditions compared with conventional orthoses: a prospective case series. J Rehabil Med Clin Commun 2021; 4: 1000048.
https://doi.org/10.2340/20030711-1000048 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/20030711-1000048
Eyiis E, Mathijssen NMC, Kok P, Sluijter J, Kraan GA. Three-dimensional printed custom-ized versus conventional plaster brace for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis: a random-ized controlled crossover trial. J Hand Surg Eur 2023; 48: 412–418.
https://doi.org/10.1177/17531934221146864 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17531934221146864
Zheng Y, Liu G, Yu L, Wang Y, Fang Y, Shen Y, et al. Effects of a 3D-printed orthosis com-pared to a low-temperature thermoplastic plate orthosis on wrist flexor spasticity in chronic hemiparetic stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2020; 34: 194–204.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215519885174 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215519885174
Kim SJ, Kim SJ, Cha YH, Lee KH, Kwon JY. Effect of personalized wrist orthosis for wrist pain with three-dimensional scanning and printing technique: a preliminary, random-ized, controlled, open-label study. Prosthet Orthot Int 2018; 42: 636–643.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364618785725 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364618785725
GIPdatabank.nl. Aantal gebruikers 2017–2021, hulpmiddelencategorie C05: Orthesen [cited 12 December 2023]; Available from: https://www.gipdatabank.nl/databank?infotype=h&label=00-totaal&tabel=B_01-basis&geg=gebr&item=C05
Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B, Cofta-Woerpel L, Linnan L, Weiner D, et al. How we design feasibility studies. Am J Prev Med 2009; 36: 452–457.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002
Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, Bond CM, Hopewell S, Thabane L, et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2016; 2: 64.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-016-0105-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-016-0105-8
Oud T, Tuijtelaars J, Bogaards H, Nollet F, Brehm MA. Preliminary effectiveness of 3D-printed orthoses in chronic hand conditions: study protocol for a non-randomised in-terventional feasibility study. BMJ Open 2023; 13: e069424.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069424
Haan EA, Terwee CB, Van Wier MF, Willigenburg NW, Van Deurzen DFP, Pisters MF, et al. Translation, cross-cultural and construct validity of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS® upper extremity item bank v2.0. Qual Life Res 2020; 29: 1123–1135.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02388-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02388-2
Abma IL, Butje BJD, Ten Klooster PM, van der Wees PJ. Measurement properties of the Dutch-Flemish patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) physical function item bank and instruments: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Out-comes 2021; 19: 62.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01647-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01647-y
Huijsmans R, Sluiter H, Aufdemkampe G. Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. Fysi-oPraxis 2001: 38–41 (in Dutch).
Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, Walters MR, Hayward RA. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am 1998; 23: 575–587.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-5023(98)80042-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-5023(98)80042-7
Arcidiacone S, Panuccio F, Tusoni F, Galeoto G. A systematic review of the measurement properties of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). Hand Surg Rehabil 2022; 41: 542–551.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hansur.2022.08.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hansur.2022.08.005
Oud T, Tuijtelaars J, Schenk J, Nollet F, Brehm M-A. Validity and reliability of the Dutch translation of the OPUS’ client satisfaction with device module in chronic users of hand orthoses. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2023; 21: 93.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-023-02181-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-023-02181-3
Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satis-faction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 1996; 8: 3–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.1996.10132268 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.1996.10132268
Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability 2002; 14: 101–105.
https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-2002-14304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-2002-14304
Wessels RD, De Witte LP. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 267–272.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0963828021000031197 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0963828021000031197
Hoogendam L, Koopman JE, van Kooij YE, Feitz R, Hundepool CA, Zhou C, et al. What are the minimally important changes of four commonly used patient-reported outcome measures for 36 hand and wrist condition-treatment combinations? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2022; 480: 1152–1166.
https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000002094 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000002094
Koopman JE, van Kooij YE, Selles RW, Slijper HP, Smit JM, van Nieuwenhoven CA, et al. Determining the minimally important change of the Michigan Hand outcomes Question-naire in patients undergoing trigger finger release. J Hand Ther 2023; 36: 139–147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2021.06.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2021.06.003
Bernstein DN, Houck JR, Mahmood B, Hammert WC. Minimal clinically important diffe-rences for PROMIS physical function, upper extremity, and pain interference in carpal tunnel release using region- and condition-specific PROM Tools. J Hand Surg Am 2019; 44: 635–640.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2019.04.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2019.04.004
Kazmers NH, Hung M, Bounsanga J, Voss MW, Howenstein A, Tyser AR. Minimal clinically important difference after carpal tunnel release using the PROMIS platform. J Hand Surg Am 2019; 44: 947–953 e941.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2019.03.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2019.03.006
Kazmers NH, Qiu Y, Ou Z, Presson AP, Tyser AR, Zhang Y. Minimal clinically important diffe-rence of the PROMIS upper-extremity computer adaptive test and QuickDASH for liga-ment reconstruction tendon interposition patients. J Hand Surg Am 2021; 46: 516–516 e517.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.11.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.11.007
Sibbald B, Roberts C. Understanding controlled trials: crossover trials. BMJ 1998; 316: 1719.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7146.1719 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7146.1719
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Tanja Oud, Johannes A. Bogaards, Frans Nollet, Merel-Anne Brehm
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All digitalized JRM contents is available freely online. The Foundation for Rehabilitation Medicine owns the copyright for all material published until volume 40 (2008), as from volume 41 (2009) authors retain copyright to their work and as from volume 49 (2017) the journal has been published Open Access, under CC-BY-NC licences (unless otherwise specified). The CC-BY-NC licenses allow third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.
From 2024, articles are published under the CC-BY licence. This license permits sharing, adapting, and using the material for any purpose, including commercial use, with the condition of providing full attribution to the original publication.
Funding data
-
ZonMw
Grant numbers 10310012110002
