The development of the CAD/CAM (Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing) system has globally changed the fabrication and delivery of prosthetics and orthotics. Furthermore, since the introduction of CAD/CAM in the 1980s, many successful CAD/CAM system are available in the market today. However, less than 20% of amputees have access to digital fabrication technology and large portion of the amputees are from the developing countries. This review designed to examine selected studies from 1980 to 2019 on CAD/CAM systems in the production of transtibial prosthetic sockets. A review was conducted based on articles gathered from Web of Science, Pubmed and Science Direct. From the findings, 92 articles found related to CAD/CAM-derived transtibial prosthetic socket (TPS). After a further screening of the articles, 20 studies were chosen and only one study was done in a developing country. The results showed an increase interest in CAD/CAM application in Transtibial prosthetic socket (TPS) production for both developed and developing countries, yet the technology has not fully utilised in the developing countries. Factors such as resources, accessibility, knowledge-gap and lack of experienced prosthetists remain the major causes of the lack of CAD/CAM system studies. Large-scale trials are required to employ digital fabrication in the developing regions, consequently advancing the production of high-quality CAD-CAM-derived TPS where most prosthetic and orthotics are needed.
HosseinpoorARWilliamsJASGautamJ, et al. Socioeconomic inequality in disability among adults: a multicountry study using the world health survey. Am J Public Health2013; 103: 1278–1286.
2.
EideAHØderudT. Assistive technology in low-income countries. In: MaclachlanMSwartzL (eds) Disability & international development: towards inclusive global health. New York, NY: Springer, 2009, pp.149–160.
3.
MalaysiaMoH. National health and morbidity survey 2015. Malaysia MoH, 2015, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
4.
HazmyWMahamudMAshikinN, et al. Major limb amputations in Seremban Hospital: a review of 204 cases from 1997-1999. Med J Malaysia2001; 56 (Suppl. C): 3–7.
5.
NazriMYAminudinCAAhmadFS, et al. Quality of life of diabetes amputees following major and minor lower limb amputations. Med J Malaysia2019; 74: 25–29.
6.
McDonaldCLWestcott-McCoySWeaverMRHaagsmaJKartinD. Global prevalence of traumatic non-fatal limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2021Apr1; 45(2): 105–114. doi: 10.1177/0309364620972258. PMID: 33274665.
7.
DayHJB. A review of the consensus conference on appropriate prosthetic technology in developing countries. Prosthet Orthot Int1996; 20: 15–23.
8.
StaatsTB. The rehabilitation of the amputee in the developing world: a review of the literature. Prosthet Orthot Int1996; 20: 45–50.
9.
GrantP. Management of diabetes in resource-poor settings. Clin Med (Lond)2013; 13: 27–31.
10.
WyssDLindsaySCleghornWL, et al. Priorities in lower limb prosthetic service delivery based on an international survey of prosthetists in low- and high-income countries. Prosthet Orthot Int2015; 39: 102–111.
AndrysekJ. Lower-limb prosthetic technologies in the developing world: a review of literature from 1994–2010. Prosthet Orthot Int2010; 34: 378–398.
13.
FaustiniMCNeptuneRRCrawfordRH, et al. An experimental and theoretical framework for manufacturing prosthetic sockets for transtibial amputees. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2006; 14: 304–310.
14.
KlassonB. Computer aided design, computer aided manufacture and other computer aids in prosthetics and orthotics. Prosthet Orthot Int1985; 9: 3–11.
15.
ÖbergTLiljaMJohanssonT, et al. Clinical evaluation of trans-tibial prosthesis sockets: a comparison between CAD CAM and conventionally produced sockets. Prosthet Orthot Int1993; 17: 164–171.
16.
LiljaMHoffmannPÖbergT. Morphological changes during early trans-tibial prosthetic firing. Prosthet Orthot Int1998; 22: 115–122.
17.
YangESAslaniNMcGarryA. Influences and trends of various shape-capture methods on outcomes in trans-tibial prosthetics: a systematic review. Prosthet Orthot Int2019; 43: 540–555.
18.
MakAFTZhangMBooneDA. State-of-the-art research in lower-limb prosthetic biomechanics-socket interface: a review. J Rehabil Res Dev2001; 38: 161–173.
19.
World Health Organization. Standards for prosthetics and orthotics Part 1. World Health Organization, 2017.
20.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ2009; 339: b2535.
21.
United Nations Publications. World economic situation and prospects. New York, NY: United Nations Publications, 2014.
22.
HartlingLBondKSantaguidaPL, et al. Testing a tool for the classification of study designs in systematic reviews of interventions and exposures showed moderate reliability and low accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol2011; 64: 861–871.
23.
TopperAKFernieGR. An evaluation of computer aided design of below-knee prosthetic sockets. Prosthet Orthot Int1990; 14: 136–142.
24.
HoldenJMFernieGR. Results of the pilot phase of a clinical evaluation of computer aided design of trans-tibial prosthesis sockets. Prosthet Orthot Int1986; 10: 142–148.
25.
RuderGK. CAD CAM trans-tibial temporary prosthesis: analysis and comparison with an established technique. Prosthet Orthot Int1992; 16: 189–195.
26.
LiljaMObergT. Volumetric determinations with CAD/CAM in prosthetics and orthotics: errors of measurement. J Rehabil Res Dev1995; 32: 141–148.
27.
GohJCHLeeRSTohSL, et al. Development of an integrated CAD-FEA process for below-knee prosthetic sockets. Clin Biomech2005; 20: 623–629.
28.
McGarryTMcHughBBuisA, et al. Evaluation of the effect of shape on a contemporary CAD system. Prosthet Orthot Int2008; 32: 145–154.
29.
SandersJESeveranceMR. Assessment technique for computer-aided manufactured sockets. J Rehabil Res Dev2011; 48: 763–774.
30.
de Boer-WilzingVBoltAGeertzenJ, et al. Variation in results of volume measurements of stumps of lower-limb amputees: a comparison of 4 methods. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2011; 92: 941–946.
31.
KarakoçMBatmazISariyildizMA, et al. Sockets manufactured by CAD/CAM method have positive effects on the quality of life of patients with transtibial amputation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil2017; 96: 578–581.
32.
KofmanRBeekmanAMEmmelotCH, et al. Measurement properties and usability of non-contact scanners for measuring transtibial residual limb volume. Prosthet Orthot Int2018; 42: 280–287.
33.
MehmoodWAbd RazakNALauMS, et al. Comparative study of the circumferential and volumetric analysis between conventional casting and three-dimensional scanning methods for transtibial socket: a preliminary study. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2019; 233: 181–192.
34.
SandersJERogersELSorensonEA, et al. CAD/CAM transtibial prosthetic sockets from central fabrication facilities: how accurate are they?J Rehabil Res Dev2007; 44: 395–405.
35.
GeilMD. Consistency, precision, and accuracy of optical and electromagnetic shape-capturing systems for digital measurement of residual-limb anthropometrics of persons with transtibial amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev2007; 44: 515–524.
36.
IsozakiKHosodaMMasudaT, et al. CAD/CAM evaluation of the fit of trans-tibial sockets for trans-tibial amputation stumps. J Med Dent Sci2006; 53: 51–56.
37.
EllepolaWSheredosSJ. Report on the evaluation of the VA/Seattle below-knee prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev1993; 30: 260–266.
38.
LemaireEDBexigaPJohnsonF, et al. Validation of a quantitative method for defining CAD CAM socket modifications. Prosthet Orthot Int1999; 23: 30–44.
39.
HastingsJAVannahWMStandJA, et al. Frequency content of prosthetic and orthotic shapes: A requirement for CAD/CAM digitizer performance. J Prosthet Ortho1998; 10: 2–6.
40.
DickinsonASSteerJWWoodsCJ, et al. Registering a methodology for imaging and analysis of residual-limb shape after transtibial amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev2016; 53: 207–218.
41.
SeminatiETalamasDCYoungM, et al. Validity and reliability of a novel 3D scanner for assessment of the shape and volume of amputees’ residual limb models. PLoS One2017; 12: e0184498.
42.
CummingsD. Prosthetics in the developing world: a review of the literature. Prosthet Orthot Int1996; 20: 51–60.
43.
ISPO, ISPO consensus conference on appropriate orthopaedic technology for low-income countries: Conclusions and recommendations. Prosthet Orthot Int2001; 25: 168–170. doi: 10.1080/03093640108726598
SandersJESeveranceMRMyersTR, et al. Central fabrication: carved positive assessment. Prosthet Orthot Int2011; 35: 81–89.
47.
KrouskopTAMuilenbergALDoughteryDR, et al. Computer-aided design of a prosthetic socket for an above-knee amputee. Journal of Rehabil Res Dev1987; 24: 31–38.
48.
Silver-ThornMBSteegeJWChildressDS. A review of prosthetic interface stress investigations. J Rehabil Res Dev1996; 33: 253–266.
49.
LaferrierJZGaileyR. Advances in lower-limb prosthetic technology. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am2010; 21: 87–110.
50.
HerbertNSimpsonDSpenceWD, et al. A preliminary investigation into the development of 3-D printing of prosthetic sockets. J Rehabil Res Dev2005; 42: 141–146.
51.
MattaAKRajuDRSumanKNS. The integration of CAD/CAM and rapid prototyping in product development: a review. Mater Today2015; 2: 3438–3445.
52.
RogersBBoskerGWCrawfordRH, et al. Advanced trans-tibial socket fabrication using selective laser sintering. Prosthet Orthot Int2007; 31: 88–100.
