University of Sydney School of Health Sciences & Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Faculty of Medical Rehabilitation Science, Taibah University, Al Madinah Al Munawarah, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
J Foot Ankle Res. 2024 Sep;17(3):e70006. doi: 10.1002/jfa2.70006.
Traditional plaster-cast fabrication of an ankle-foot orthosis (AFO), although robust, is time-consuming and cumbersome. 3D scanning is quickly gaining attention as an alternative to plaster casting the foot and ankle region for AFO fabrication. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and speed of two high-performing 3D scanners compared with plaster casting in pediatric patients requiring an AFO.
Ten participants (mean age 10.0 ± 3.9 years) prescribed AFOs for a movement disorder were 3D scanned with the high-cost Artec Eva (Eva) and low-cost Structure Sensor II (SSII) using one-person (1p) and two-person (2p) protocols. Accuracy and speed for both 3D scanners were compared with corresponding plaster cast measures (≤5% acceptable difference). Bland and Altman plots were generated to show mean bias and limits of agreement.
Overall, Eva and SSII were accurate for foot, ankle, and lower leg key clinical landmarks (Eva-1p: 4.4 ± 7.3%; Eva-2p: 3.2 ± 7.5%; SSII-1p: 0.6 ± 7.4%; SSII-2p: 0.7 ± 8.2%). Bland and Altman plots for the SSII demonstrated lower biases for 1p (bias 0.5 mm, LoA: -12.4-13.5 mm) and 2p (0.4 mm, LoA: -11.4-12.2 mm) protocols compared with Eva for 1p (bias 2.3 mm, LoA: -8.0-12.7 mm) and 2p (1.8 mm, LoA: -10.7-14.3 mm) protocols. The SSII 2p protocol was the fastest 3D scanning method (26.4 ± 11.1 s).
The high-cost Eva and low-cost SSII 3D scanners using the 1p and 2p protocols produced comparable accuracy and faster capture of key clinical landmarks compared with plaster cast measures for the fabrication of AFOs in pediatric patients.
传统的石膏铸造足踝矫形器(AFO)虽然坚固,但耗时且繁琐。3D 扫描作为一种替代石膏铸造足部和踝关节区域以制作 AFO 的方法,正在迅速受到关注。本研究的目的是评估两种高性能 3D 扫描仪在需要 AFO 的儿科患者中的准确性和速度,与石膏铸造相比。
10 名参与者(平均年龄 10.0 ± 3.9 岁)因运动障碍而被处方 AFO,使用单人(1p)和双人(2p)协议,使用高成本的 Artec Eva(Eva)和低成本的 Structure Sensor II(SSII)对其进行 3D 扫描。比较了两种 3D 扫描仪的准确性和速度与相应的石膏铸造测量值(≤5%可接受差异)。生成 Bland 和 Altman 图以显示平均偏差和协议极限。
总体而言,Eva 和 SSII 对足部、踝关节和小腿关键临床标志的测量值均准确(Eva-1p:4.4 ± 7.3%;Eva-2p:3.2 ± 7.5%;SSII-1p:0.6 ± 7.4%;SSII-2p:0.7 ± 8.2%)。SSII 的 Bland 和 Altman 图显示,1p(偏差 0.5mm,LOA:-12.4-13.5mm)和 2p(0.4mm,LOA:-11.4-12.2mm)方案的偏差低于 Eva 1p(偏差 2.3mm,LOA:-8.0-12.7mm)和 2p(1.8mm,LOA:-10.7-14.3mm)方案。SSII 2p 方案是最快的 3D 扫描方法(26.4 ± 11.1s)。
使用 1p 和 2p 方案的高成本 Eva 和低成本 SSII 3D 扫描仪在制作儿科患者 AFO 时,与石膏铸造测量值相比,产生了类似的准确性和更快地捕获关键临床标志。