Effects of conventional versus 3D-printed cosmetic covers on user satisfaction and psychosocial well-being in lower limb prostheses users: A randomised crossover trial

TL;DR

This study found that 3D-printed cosmetic covers for prostheses improved users' satisfaction and psychosocial well-being compared to traditional foam covers.

Contribution

The study provides empirical evidence on the impact of 3D-printed versus traditional cosmetic covers on prosthesis users' well-being.

Findings

3D-printed covers improved general psychosocial adjustment and aesthetic satisfaction compared to foam covers.

Foam covers were associated with better adjustment to physical limitations.

High participant variance suggests diverse user preferences for cosmetic cover designs.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of prescribing a traditional foam cosmetic cover versus a more recently developed 3D printed cosmetic cover on the satisfaction and psychosocial wellbeing of prosthesis users.

Transtibial and transfemoral prosthesis users were randomly assigned into two groups. One group was fitted with a foam cosmesis with a nylon stocking while the other received a 3D printed cosmetic cover. Cosmeses were worn for 12 weeks before being switched to the alternate design. Outcomes related to satisfaction and psychosocial wellbeing (ABIS-R, TAPES, QUEST) were collected on 3 occasions. Linear mixed effects models assessed for differences between the cosmetic covers.

10 participants completed all outcome measures on 3 occasions. Significant differences in favour of the 3D printed cosmesis were observed for TAPES general psychosocial adjustment (p = .03), TAPES aesthetic satisfaction (p = .04) and ABIS-R (p = .025). Adjustment to physical limitations were higher for the foam cover (p = .008). No differences were observed in QUEST scores. Covariates; age, time since amputation, extroversion, did not have any significant effects.

Results suggest that cosmetic cover design can significantly affect prosthesis users’ psychosocial wellbeing and satisfaction with aesthetic appearance. Variance between participants is high indicating diverse preferences.

Figures