KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Joint diseases and related surgery / 2022 / Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 1

Evaluation of the patient satisfaction of using a 3D printed medical casting in fracture treatment

Mahir MAHİROĞULLARI
Ahmet Güray BATMAZ
Serkan SURUCU
Mahmud AYDIN
Deniz KARAŞAHİN
Sayfa
180–186
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The patients found the 3D printed medical cast to be comfortable, safe, easy-to-apply, lightweight, and effective.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objectives: This study aims to assess, through a questionnaire, the functionality, and efficacy of using three-dimensional (3D) printed medical casts.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Patients and methods: Between February 2017 and March 2019, a total of 24 patients (14 males, 10 females; mean age: 33.1±9.4 years, range, 12 to 62 years) with upper extremity fracture who were applied 3D printed medical cast were included.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The patients found the 3D printed medical cast to be comfortable, safe, easy-to-apply, lightweight, and effective.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:2017 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to assess, through a questionnaire, the functionality, and efficacy of using three-dimensional (3D) printed medical casts. Patients and methods: Between February 2017 and March 2019, a total of 24 patients (14 males, 10 females; mean age: 33.1±9.4 years, range, 12 to 62 years) with upper extremity fracture who were applied 3D printed medical cast were included. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0). Each item is scored on a five-point scale. Results: The mean follow-up was 14 (range, 6 to 18) months. All fractures healed within four to six weeks without any complications. In all cases, there was no loss of reduction. The total mean QUEST 2.0 satisfaction score for the participants was 4.7. The ratings on each scale ranged from 4.5 to 4.9. Conclusion: Almost all patients with upper extremity fractures were satisfied with the 3D printed medical cast. The patients found the 3D printed medical cast to be comfortable, safe, easy-to-apply, lightweight, and effective.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

MAHİROĞULLARI, M., BATMAZ, A. G., SURUCU, S., AYDIN, M., KARAŞAHİN, D. (2022). Evaluation of the patient satisfaction of using a 3D printed medical casting in fracture treatment. Joint diseases and related surgery, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 1, 180–186. https://ajindex.com/articles/559162

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (16)

  1. Christopher L, Colton MD. The history of fracture treatment. In: Browner BD, Jupiter JB, Levine AM, Trafton PG, Krettek C, Green NE, editors. Skeletal Trauma. 2nd ed. Philedelphia: Saunders; 2008. p. 1-32
  2. Szostakowski B, Smitham P, Khan WS. Plaster of Paris-short history of casting and injured limb immobilzation. Open Orthop J 2017;11:291-6
  3. Faustini MC, Neptune RR, Crawford RH, Stanhope SJ. Manufacture of passive dynamic ankle-foot orthoses using selective laser sintering. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2008;55:784-90
  4. Adkins LM. Cast changes: Synthetic versus plaster. Pediatr Nurs 1997;23:422, 425-7
  5. Graham J, Wang M, Frizzell K, Watkins C, Beredjiklian P, Rivlin M. Conventional vs 3-dimensional printed cast wear comfort. Hand (N Y) 2020;15:388-92
  6. Ertürk C, Ayyıldız S, Erdöl C. Orthopedics and 3D technology in Turkey: A preliminary report. Jt Dis Relat Surg 2021;32:279-89
  7. Lin H, Shi L, Wang D. A rapid and intelligent designing technique for patient-specific and 3D-printed orthopedic cast. 3D Print Med 2015;2:4
  8. Demers L, Weiss-lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability 2002;14:101-5
  9. Sikka MP, Midha VK. The role of biopolymers and biodegradable polymeric dressings in managing chronic wounds. In: Advanced Textiles for Wound Care. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing; 2019. p. 463-88
  10. Seitz H, Marlovits S, Schwendenwein I, Vécsei V, Losert U. Biocompatibility of polyethylene terephthalate--PET- -(Trevira strong)--an in vivo study of the sheep knee. Biomed Tech (Berl) 1996;41:178-82
  11. Fess EE. Orthoses for mobilization of joints: principles and methods. In: Skirven TM, Osterman AL, Fedorczyk JM, Amadio PC, editor. Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity. Philadelphia: Mosby; 2011. p. 1588-98
  12. Gravlee JR, Van Durme DJ. Braces and splints for musculoskeletal conditions. Am Fam Physician 2007;75:342-8
  13. Chen YJ, Lin H, Zhang X, Huang W, Shi L, Wang D. Application of 3D-printed and patient-specific cast for the treatment of distal radius fractures: Initial experience. 3D Print Med 2017;3:11
  14. Wong DA, Watson AB. Allergic contact dermatitis due to benzalkonium chloride in plaster of Paris. Australas J Dermatol 2001;42:33-5
  15. Sharma H, Prabu D. Plaster of Paris: Past, present and future. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2013;4:107-9
  16. Akoglu G, Emre S, Metin A, Bozkurt M. High frequency of hypertrichosis afte