Abstract
BackgroundIn the production of ankle-foot orthoses and in-shoe foot orthoses, lower leg morphology is traditionally captured using a plaster cast or foam impression box. Plaster-based processes are a time-consuming and labour-intensive fabrication method. 3D scanning is a promising alternative, however how these new technologies compare with traditional methods is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the speed, accuracy and reliability of 3D scanning with traditional methods of capturing foot and ankle morphology for fabricating orthoses.MethodsPRISMA guidelines were followed and electronic databases were searched to March 2020 using keywords related to 3D scanning technologies and traditional foot and ankle morphology capture methods. Studies of any design from healthy or clinical populations of any age and gender were eligible for inclusion. Studies must have compared 3D scanning to another form of capturing morphology of the foot and/or ankle. Data relating to speed, accuracy and reliability as well as study design, 3D scanner specifications and comparative capture techniques were extracted by two authors (M.F. and Z.W.). Study quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN).ResultsSix articles met the inclusion criteria, whereby 3D scanning was compared to five traditional methods (plaster cast, foam impression box, ink footprint, digital footprint and clinical assessment). The quality of study outcomes was rated low to moderate (GRADE) and doubtful to adequate (COSMIN). Compared to traditional methods, 3D scanning appeared to be faster than casting (2 to 11 min vs 11 to 16 min). Inter-rater reliability (ICC 0.18–0.99) and intra-rater reliability (ICCs 0.25–0.99) were highly variable for both 3D scanning and traditional techniques, with higher agreement generally dependent on the foot parameter measured.ConclusionsThe quality and quantity of literature comparing the speed, accuracy and reliability of 3D scanning with traditional methods of capturing foot and ankle morphology is low. 3D scanning appears to be faster especially for experienced users, however accuracy and reliability between methods is variable.
Highlights
Orthoses are external supportive devices that are worn to reduce pain and enhance the function of patients with disorders of the neuromuscular and/or musculoskeletal systems
Search terms related to the 3D scanning (3D scan*, Photogrammetry, Laser scan*, Structured Light scan*, Three dimensional scan*, (3D digitalization or 3D digitalisation), Three-dimensional construction, 3D surface scan*, 3D laser scan*, 3D structured light scan*, scan*) combined with AND to search terms related to foot and/or ankle (ankle, foot, Foot morphology, ankle morphology, foot parameter*, ankle parameter*) combined with AND to search terms related to foot and ankle capturing methods other than 3D scanning (Plaster cast*, foam impression, polyurethane resin, cast*, (Plaster Mold* or plaster Mould), Hand cast*, fiberglass cast*, cast* socks, negative impression, positive impression, foot trace*, foot print*, footprint)
Traditional foot and ankle capture tools included in the studies were plaster cast, foam impression, digital footprint, ink footprint and 3D scanning
Summary
Orthoses are external supportive devices that are worn to reduce pain and enhance the function of patients with disorders of the neuromuscular and/or musculoskeletal systems. This modified positive is vacuum formed with polypropylene to produce an AFO [2, 3] These traditional methods of capturing foot and ankle morphology can be highly resource intensive, especially for fabricating AFOs, requiring dedicated infrastructure including a casting room, plaster friendly furniture, sink with plaster capture, and anti-slip floor. Casting for FOs may not require the same level of resourcing as AFOs, the process is still highly dependent on practitioner experience of positioning and manipulating the foot and/or ankle [4] Overall, these traditional methods are labour intensive, restrict design choices, and require high level of skill and dedicated infrastructure that can increase costs and patient wait times [5, 6]. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the speed, accuracy and reliability of 3D scanning with traditional methods of capturing foot and ankle morphology for fabricating orthoses
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
