Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
UNKNOWN
NA
10 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2023-06-01
2023-08-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The goal of this cross-over clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness of 3D-printed splints versus thermoplastic splints for treating thumb osteoarthritis (CMC OA).
The main question\[s\] it aims to answer are:
Primary objective:
• Evaluate the general useability and possible benefits of splint production by 3D printing in a clinical setting
Secondary objectives:
* Compare the effectiveness of 3D printed orthosis and the low-temperature plastic fabrication manual method in pain reduction
* Compare the effectiveness of 3D printed orthosis and the low-temperature plastic fabrication manual method in improving the function.
* Compare the satisfaction of patients with the 3D printed orthosis and low-temperature plastic fabrication manual method.
* Compare the length of time needed to fabricate each orthosis
* Compare the weight of orthosis
Participants will provide with two splints (traditional orthosis and 3D-printed orthoses). Participants will use the first orthosis for three weeks, be given a week for washout, and then cross over to the second orthosis.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
CMC (Carpometacarpal) OA (Osteoarthritis) Thumb Splint Study
NCT00705146
Influence of Custom Orthosis Post Carpometacarpal (CMC) Arthroplasty
NCT05307510
CMC Arthritis - Neoprene Vs. Thermoplast Short Opponens Splinting
NCT00438763
Woodcasting Versus Thermoplast Splint in CMC Arthroplasty
NCT06876350
Non-surgical Intervention for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
NCT03360344
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The variations of the recommended orthosis for immobilization of the CMC are varied from the neoprene splints to the rigid thermoplastic material. However, the patient's satisfaction with these materials is different. Patients reported more satisfaction with neoprene thumb splints but found custom-made splints more functional.
Hand therapists typically use low-temperature thermoplastic materials (LTTP) for orthosis fabrication.
3D-printed orthoses are emerging as an alternative for immobilizing joints. Different studies tried to compare the two methods of the 3D printed orthosis with a thermoplastic orthosis and reported some advantages for a 3D printed orthosis. These studies reported advantages including being lighter in weight, producing less incidence of skin irritation, offering better hygiene with less odour and perspiration, appealing and custom-tailored aesthetic design, and the ability to use recycled affordable materials. Furthermore, the fabrication of thermoplastic orthosis needs expertise and knowledge, which require specialized training to fabricate and are time-consuming, expensive, difficult to keep clean, bulky, cumbersome, and unable to tolerate moisture at high temperatures. Also, the thermoplastic material is subject to cracking, requiring the patient to go through the healthcare system again and return to the clinic just for a therapist to make another splint. Off-the-shelf splints have better breathability and longevity but cost more and are often less form-fitting or stabilizing than a therapist-made splint. Despite the numerous advantages of the 3D printed splint listed in the literature, the high cost of equipment, lack of training and skill of clinicians and the long time required for production limited their use in hand therapy.
Progress has been made in developing the 3D of orthoses. Potential advantages include comfort, well-fitting, adequate ventilation in the splint and a clean production process. However, there are challenges in reducing the reliance on the in-person evaluation given the complex geometries of the hand, unavailability of high-resolution scanners, fabrication time that may require multiple visits and cost, equipment materials and expertise. Accurate and high-resolution 3D scanners are available on the market and are currently used in research studies. Different scanners are being used in the literature to scan the hand. Different steps are required to fabricate a 3D printed orthosis, including scanning the body segment with a 3D scanner, CT scan or MRI; transferring the scanned data to a computer modelling software program; printing the orthosis; and finishing/adjusting the final product. The time needed to scan the affected upper limb ranged from 1 to 3 minutes. The time needed to modify the scanned digital file in a computer-aided design software program to be ready for 3D printing was reported to take approximately 1 hour. Only one study reported a 53% reduction in total fabrication time with a 3D-printed orthosis compared with a traditional orthosis.
Few studies compared 3D-printed orthosis with traditional orthosis fabrication in the clinical setting. The reported outcome measures are Outcome measures pain, overall satisfaction, and function. More satisfaction, less skin irritation, itchiness and odour; however, none utilize patients with CMC OA as participants. Chu et al. used 3D hand parametric modelling techniques to create customized designs of short thumb orthoses in healthy adults. They reported that the 3D-printed orthosis provided greater flexibility of hand movement and stronger support than the traditional, manually formed orthosis.
There is a gap in evidence regarding the clinical utility and feasibility of using 3D printing versus traditional orthosis in patients with CMC joint OA.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
CROSSOVER
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Thermoplastic Splint(orthosis)
A static hand-based splint (orthosis) made with a thermoplastic material that immobilizes the CMC and MCP joint will be used.
splint (orthosis)
3D printed splint (orthosis) help prevent the joint from shifting during pinch activities. This reduces improper joint loading and helps reduce pain and the progression of degenerative change in patients with OA.
3D printed splint (orthosis)
A static hand-based 3D-printed splint (orthosis) made with 3D printing that immobilizes both the CMC and MCP joint will be used.
splint (orthosis)
3D printed splint (orthosis) help prevent the joint from shifting during pinch activities. This reduces improper joint loading and helps reduce pain and the progression of degenerative change in patients with OA.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
splint (orthosis)
3D printed splint (orthosis) help prevent the joint from shifting during pinch activities. This reduces improper joint loading and helps reduce pain and the progression of degenerative change in patients with OA.
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* able to provide written informed consent
* indicating immobilization of CMC as part of their therapy. The orthosis treatment can be in any part of their treatment (first users or the patients with experience of using orthosis).
Patients will be excluded if
* have skin irritation, blister, or wound.
* have neurologic conditions affecting their pain perception in the upper limb.
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Western University, Canada
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
122173
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.