Oldfrey Ben M, Morgado Ramirez Dafne Z, Holloway Catherine, Wassall Matthew, Nester Christopher, Dickinson Alex, Wong Man S, Danemayer Jamie, Kenney Laurence, Lemaire Edward, Ramstrand Nerrolyn, Gholizadeh Hossein, Diment Laura E, Donovan-Hall Margaret K, Miodownik Mark
Global Disability Innovation Hub (GDI Hub), London, United Kingdom.
Institute of Making, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2024 Nov 13;49(4):427-444. doi: 10.1097/PXR.0000000000000399.
Traditionally, orthosis manufacturing is time and labor-intensive. Digitalization of some of the fabrication process is already ubiquitous, yet extension across device types could reduce the burden of manual labor and advance automation to help unblock access to assistive technologies globally. It seems, however, that appropriately strong evidence is holding this back. This review looks to thoroughly examine the current state of evidence to make this clear.
To identify gaps in the literature that create barriers to decision-making on either appropriate uptake by clinical teams or setting research directions, by identifying what forms of evidence the current research literature provides to the orthotics community.
Scoping literature review.
A comprehensive search was completed in the following databases: AMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health Archive, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ACM, IEEE, and Engineering Village, resulting in 3487 articles to be screened.
After screening, 121 lower limb orthosis, 104 upper limb orthosis, and 30 spinal orthosis articles were included in this review. For some areas such as CAD/CAM-produced insoles and spinal orthoses, the evidence base is strong. For most additive manufacture articles, long-term, larger-scale studies as well as research into training requirements are lacking.
The advantages of digital fabrication technology that could streamline orthotic device production in many cases are still blocked by a lack of strong formal evidence, ie large longitudinal studies with a range of evaluation measures. Increased collaboration between clinicians, patient/service users, academia, and industry could be a route to addressing these gaps and creating a better pathway to market for new technologies.
传统上,矫形器制造既耗时又费力。部分制造过程的数字化已很普遍,但跨设备类型的扩展可减轻体力劳动负担并推进自动化,以帮助在全球范围内畅通无阻地获取辅助技术。然而,似乎是缺乏充分有力的证据阻碍了这一进程。本综述旨在全面审视现有证据状况,以厘清这一问题。
通过确定当前研究文献为矫形器领域提供了哪些形式的证据,找出文献中存在的差距,这些差距对临床团队做出适当采用的决策或确定研究方向构成了障碍。
范围综述。
在以下数据库中完成全面检索:AMED、MEDLINE、EMBASE、全球卫生档案库、CINAHL Plus、Cochrane图书馆、科学引文索引、美国计算机协会数据库、电气和电子工程师协会数据库以及工程村数据库,共筛选出3487篇文章。
筛选后,本综述纳入了121篇下肢矫形器、104篇上肢矫形器和30篇脊柱矫形器文章。在某些领域,如计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造(CAD/CAM)生产的鞋垫和脊柱矫形器,证据基础较为坚实。对于大多数增材制造文章而言,缺乏长期、大规模研究以及对培训要求的研究。
在许多情况下,可简化矫形器生产的数字制造技术的优势仍因缺乏有力的正式证据而受阻,即缺乏采用一系列评估措施的大型纵向研究。临床医生、患者/服务使用者、学术界和行业之间加强合作可能是解决这些差距并为新技术创造更好的市场推广途径的一条道路。