Evaluating additive manufacturing for the production of custom head supports: A comparison against a commercial head support under static loading conditions

The provision of wheelchair seating accessories, such as head supports, is often limited to the use of commercial products. Additive manufacturing has the potential to produce custom seating components, but there are very few examples of published work. This article reports a method of utilising 3D scanning, computer-aided design and additive manufacturing for the fabrication of a custom head support for a wheelchair. Three custom head supports, of the same shape, were manufactured in nylon using a continuous filament fabrication machine. The custom head supports were tested against an equivalent and widely used commercial head support using ISO 16840-3:2014. The head supports were statically loaded in two configurations, one modelling a posterior force on the inner rear surface and the other modelling a lateral force on the side. The posterior force resulted in failure of the supporting bracketry before the custom head support. A similar magnitude of forces was applied laterally for the custom and commercial head support. When the load was removed, the custom recovered to its original shape while the commercial sustained plastic deformation. The addition of a joint in the head support increased the maximum displacement, 128.6 mm compared to 71.7 mm, and the use of carbon fibre resulted in the head support sustaining a higher force at larger displacements, increase in 30 N. Based on the deformation and recovery characteristics, the results indicate that additive manufacturing could be an appropriate method to produce lighter weight, highly customised, cost-effective and safe head supports for wheelchair users

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

Exploring the barriers to using assistive technology for individuals with chronic conditions: a meta-synthesis review

Purpose: Assistive technology can provide a key tool to enabling independence, greater inclusion and participation in society for individuals with chronic conditions. This potential is currently not always realized due to barriers to accessing and using assistive technology. This review aims to identify the common barriers to acquiring and using assistive technology for users with chronic conditions through a systematic meta-synthesis. This differs from other systematic reviews by applying a transdiagnostic approach to identify if barriers are common across chronic conditions. Materials and methods: A systematic literature search of five scientific databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Medline) was conducted to identify relevant qualitative studies. The search was conducted in November 2019. For the identified articles, thematic content analysis was conducted and the methodological quality was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative research. Results: Forty papers met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Fifty-one descriptive themes grouped into six overarching analytical themes were identified from the studies. The analytical themes identified were: the design and function of the assistive technology, service provision, information and awareness, psychological barriers, support network and societal barriers. Conclusions: The barriers are interconnected and common across different health conditions. More involvement in personalized care for developing strategies, adaptation of home technologies and provision of assistive technology could overcome the service provision and design barriers to assistive technology. Accessible information and providing greater awareness will be important to overcoming information, psychological and societal barriers to assistive technology. Implications for rehabilitation: Individuals with chronic conditions face complex barriers to acquiring and using assistive technology as a result of the devices themselves, their individual context, the healthcare context where assistive technology is provided and wider societal barriers. The provision of assistive technology needs to change away from the traditional medical model of the “expert” clinician and instead focus on more user involvement to deliver personalised care that utilises the users lived knowledge and experiences. Assistive technology provision should be considered alongside how to adapt everyday mainstream technology to meet user needs; the provision of devices should encourage creative problem solving rather then relying on pre-defined prescription lists of assistive technology