Testing of a 3D printed hand exoskeleton for an individual with stroke: a case study.
Drew R Dudley, Brian A Knarr, Ka-Chun Siu and 3 others
PMID 31385727WHAT IT FOUND
A 3D-printed passive exoskeleton helped one stroke survivor extend his hand and grasp blocks with a normal pinch, rather than wedging them between fingers.
The device scored well for usability, but this single case cannot prove it works for other patients.
Key findings
01With the exoskeleton, the participant moved an average of five more blocks and doubled his average block count compared to without it.
02The device allowed the participant to perform a normal pincer grasp on blocks, whereas without it he used compensatory strategies like wedging or ulnar grasping.
03The participant rated the device highly for usability, receiving a System Usability Scale score of 90 and an average Quebec User Evaluation score of 4.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
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 reports on a single participant, so findings cannot be generalized to other stroke survivors. The participant was 17 years post-stroke, which may limit applicability to those in earlier stages of recovery. The finger enclosures blocked proprioceptive feedback, which the authors suggest may have inhibited performance and could be improved in future designs. There was no control group or comparison to other assistive devices, such as the commercially available Saebo Flex mentioned in the introduction. The study did not include follow-up to assess long-term home use or durability of the printed device.
Declared interests
The authors report no conflict of interest. The study was supported by the NIH, Non-U.S. Gov't, and U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume this device will work for your patients. This is a single case report with no control group, so the improvement cannot be separated from the novelty of the device or natural variability. The authors explicitly state it is unclear if other stroke survivors will improve.