Review reports favorable outcomes for printed orthoses, with unresolved durability questions
A review described improvements in movement, comfort and fit across several types of orthoses, while highlighting small studies and inconsistent assessment methods.
Based on the published abstract. The full paper may contain additional methods, results and limitations.
The 30-second takeaway
The review described favorable outcomes for orthoses made with three-dimensional printing, including changes in walking, function, comfort and fit. However, results covered very different devices and patient groups. Without effect estimates or detailed comparisons in the abstract, these findings do not establish that every printed orthosis performs better than a conventionally made alternative.
The authors identify small samples, inconsistent assessment methods and durability concerns. This abstract-based account cannot quantify the reported improvements or establish how long they persisted, limiting judgments about practical value.
Device type shaped the outcome
Insole studies examined pressure distribution and comfort, while ankle-foot devices addressed walking symmetry and mobility. Spinal devices, upper-limb supports and helmets involved other outcomes, making a single overall performance claim difficult to interpret.
Durability remains an open question
Assessment timing is not reported in the abstract. Gains in fit or movement therefore leave unanswered how performance holds up over time, particularly given the durability concerns and inconsistent assessment methods identified by the authors.
The original publication
The current state of 3D-printed orthoses clinical outcomes: a systematic review.
Atallah H, Qufabz T, Bakhsh HR et al.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord · 2025
- PubMed ID
- 40890671
- Record checked
AI-assisted research and writing. This explains one selected publication; it is not a complete review of everything known. Our approach.
One more question, understood.
Keep track of the research you’ve explored.