A scoping review of digital fabrication techniques applied to prosthetics and orthotics: Part 1 of 2—Prosthetics

Background: Traditionally, the manufacture of prostheses is time-consuming and labor-intensive. One possible route to improving access and quality of these devices is the digitalizing of the fabrication process, which may reduce the burden of manual labor and bring the potential for automation that could help unblock access to assistive technologies globally. Objectives: To identify where there are gaps in the literature that are creating barriers to decision-making on either appropriate uptake by clinical teams or on the needed next steps in research that mean these technologies can continue on a pathway to maturity. Study design: Scoping literature review. Methods: A comprehensive search was completed in the following databases: Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health Archive, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Association for Computing Machinery, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and Engineering Village, resulting in 3487 articles to be screened. Results: After screening, 130 lower limb prosthetic articles and 117 upper limb prosthetic articles were included in this review. Multiple limitations in the literature were identified, particularly a lack of long-term, larger-scale studies; research into the training requirements for these technologies and the necessary rectification processes; and a high range of variance of production workflows and materials which makes drawing conclusions difficult. Conclusions: These limitations create a barrier to adequate evidence-based decision-making for clinicians, technology developers, and wider policymakers. Increased collaboration between academia, industry, and clinical teams across more of the pathway to market for new technologies could be a route to addressing these gaps

A Personal Respirator to Improve Protection for Healthcare Workers Treating COVID-19 (PeRSo)

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 infection is a global pandemic. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to protect healthcare workers has been a recurrent challenge in terms of global stocks, supply logistics and suitability. In some settings, around 20% of healthcare workers treating COVID-19 cases have become infected, which leads to staff absence at peaks of the pandemic, and in some cases mortality.Methods: To address shortcomings in PPE, we developed a simple powered air purifying respirator, made from inexpensive and widely available components. The prototype was designed to minimize manufacturing complexity so that derivative versions could be developed in low resource settings with minor modification.Results: The “Personal Respirator – Southampton” (PeRSo) delivers High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtered air from a battery powered fan-filter assembly into a lightweight hood with a clear visor that can be comfortably worn for several hours. Validation testing demonstrates that the prototype removes microbes, avoids excessive CO2 build-up in normal use, and passes fit test protocols widely used to evaluate standard N95/FFP2 and N99/FFP3 face masks. Feedback from doctors and nurses indicate the PeRSo prototype was preferred to standard FFP2 and FFP3 masks, being more comfortable and reducing the time and risk of recurrently changing PPE. Patients report better communication and reassurance as the entire face is visible.Conclusion: Rapid upscale of production of cheaply produced powered air purifying respirators, designed to achieve regulatory approval in the country of production, could protect healthcare workers from infection and improve healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic

Rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury (ACL SNNAP): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common debilitating injury that can cause instability of the knee. We aimed to investigate the best management strategy between reconstructive surgery and non-surgical treatment for patients with a non-acute ACL injury and persistent symptoms of instability.MethodsWe did a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial in 29 secondary care National Health Service orthopaedic units in the UK. Patients with symptomatic knee problems (instability) consistent with an ACL injury were eligible. We excluded patients with meniscal pathology with characteristics that indicate immediate surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer to either surgery (reconstruction) or rehabilitation (physiotherapy but with subsequent reconstruction permitted if instability persisted after treatment), stratified by site and baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score—4 domain version (KOOS4). This management design represented normal practice. The primary outcome was KOOS4 at 18 months after randomisation. The principal analyses were intention-to-treat based, with KOOS4 results analysed using linear regression. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN10110685, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02980367.FindingsBetween Feb 1, 2017, and April 12, 2020, we recruited 316 patients. 156 (49%) participants were randomly assigned to the surgical reconstruction group and 160 (51%) to the rehabilitation group. Mean KOOS4 at 18 months was 73·0 (SD 18·3) in the surgical group and 64·6 (21·6) in the rehabilitation group. The adjusted mean difference was 7·9 (95% CI 2·5–13·2; p=0·0053) in favour of surgical management. 65 (41%) of 160 patients allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent surgery according to protocol within 18 months. 43 (28%) of 156 patients allocated to surgery did not receive their allocated treatment. We found no differences between groups in the proportion of intervention-related complications.InterpretationSurgical reconstruction as a management strategy for patients with non-acute ACL injury with persistent symptoms of instability was clinically superior and more cost-effective in comparison with rehabilitation management

A scoping review of digital fabrication techniques applied to prosthetics and orthotics: Part 1 of 2—Prosthetics

Background: Traditionally, the manufacture of prostheses is time-consuming and labor-intensive. One possible route to improving access and quality of these devices is the digitalizing of the fabrication process, which may reduce the burden of manual labor and bring the potential for automation that could help unblock access to assistive technologies globally. Objectives: To identify where there are gaps in the literature that are creating barriers to decision-making on either appropriate uptake by clinical teams or on the needed next steps in research that mean these technologies can continue on a pathway to maturity. Study design: Scoping literature review. Methods: A comprehensive search was completed in the following databases: Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health Archive, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Association for Computing Machinery, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and Engineering Village, resulting in 3487 articles to be screened. Results: After screening, 130 lower limb prosthetic articles and 117 upper limb prosthetic articles were included in this review. Multiple limitations in the literature were identified, particularly a lack of long-term, larger-scale studies; research into the training requirements for these technologies and the necessary rectification processes; and a high range of variance of production workflows and materials which makes drawing conclusions difficult. Conclusions: These limitations create a barrier to adequate evidence-based decision-making for clinicians, technology developers, and wider policymakers. Increased collaboration between academia, industry, and clinical teams across more of the pathway to market for new technologies could be a route to addressing these gaps