Effect of Window and Hole Pattern Cut-Outs on Design Optimization of 3D Printed Braces.
Robert Rizza, XueCheng Liu, Vince Anewenter
PMID 36188888WHAT IT FOUND
Hexagonal holes with 10 mm diameter and 12 mm spacing keep braces strong while removing 10% of material.
Abdominal windows must be “bib” shaped; circular ones fail structural tests. Derotation window size and position do not affect strength, so set them for patient comfort.
Key findings
01Hexagonal hole patterns with a 10 mm equivalent diameter and 12 mm spacing meet the required factor of safety (2.32) and deformation limit (4.9 mm), removing 10.09% of brace volume.
02Circular abdominal windows fail the structural safety factor even at small sizes, while “bib” shaped windows meet both safety and deformation requirements.
03The size and placement of the derotation window have little to no effect on the brace’s structural integrity, allowing these to be set based on clinical needs.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study used geometry from only one specific patient case, though the authors argue results scale linearly. The model assumed the rib cage was rigid, which simplifies how forces are transferred in real bodies. No actual patients wore these braces; all conclusions are based on computer simulations. The material properties were fixed for one type of 3D printing polymer.
Declared interests
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume these design rules apply to all brace materials or patient anatomies. The study used one specific plastic polymer and one patient geometry, so results may not hold for different 3D printing materials or highly variable spinal curvatures.