Research on Prosthetic limb Design Driven by New Manufacturing Processes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61173/r5sj6920Keywords:
Prosthetic limb design, additive manufacturing, composite materials, total cost of ownership, user experienceAbstract
Traditional prosthetic limb manufacturing has long relied on traditional processes such as subtractive manufacturing, which has inherent limitations such as low customization, high cost, and long production cycle. In recent years, new manufacturing processes such as additive manufacturing and composite material forming have provided disruptive solutions for personalized, lightweight and functional prosthetic design. This article aims to systematically study the comprehensive impact of new manufacturing processes on the functionality, economy and user experience of prosthetic limbs. Through literature review, the evolution of technology is reviewed. Through case analysis, advanced prosthetic design cases are studied. A comprehensive performance index evaluation system and a total cost of ownership (TCO) model are constructed to quantitatively compare the differences between traditional and new manufacturing processes. The research results show that the design based on 3D printing and composite materials can significantly reduce the weight of prosthetic limbs, enhance structural strength, shorten the customization cycle and lower the cost per piece. In addition, the user experience has also significantly improved in terms of aesthetics, comfort and psychological acceptance. This paper ultimately proposes an optimization framework for prosthetic limbs that integrates materials, design and manufacturing processes, providing a theoretical basis and practical guidance for the future research and development of high-performance and highly accessible prosthetic limbs.
References
[1] World Health Organization. Standards for prosthetics and orthotics[S]. Geneva: WHO, 2017.
[2] Smith J, Johnson M. Traditional prosthetic socket manufacturing techniques[J]. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 2018, 30(2): 45-52.
[3] Zhang Chao, Li Ming, Wang Jun, et al. Finite element analysis of stress distribution in a prosthetic socket[J]. Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology, 2020, 20(4): 2050032.
[4] Wilson A B. The challenges of pediatric prosthetic provision[J]. JPO: Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 2018, 30(1): 2-5.
[5] Chen Li, Zhao Wei, Sun Hui, et al. Cost analysis of prosthetic services in developing countries[J]. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2021, 43(15): 1825–1832.
[6] Ten Kate J, Smit G, Breedveld P. 3D-printed upper limb prostheses: a review[J]. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2017, 12(3): 300-314.
[7] Ziegelwagner F, Schwentenwein M, Gmeiner R. Evaluation of the mechanical properties of 3D printed polymers for custom prosthetic liners[J]. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 2023, 138: 105642.
[8] Hofmann M, et al. Clinical evaluation of 3D printed transtibial prosthetic sockets. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2023, 18(2): 145–152.
[9] Davidson J. A comparative study of user satisfaction with traditionally fabricated and 3D printed prosthetic sockets[J]. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 2023, 47(1): 45-52.
[10] Light C M, et al. The Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure[J]. British Journal of Hand Therapy, 2002, 7(2): 50- 56.
[11] Bullock I M, et al. The Anthropomorphic Hand Assessment Protocol[C]//2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. IEEE, 2013: 1-8.
[12] Zhang Yong, Liu Yang, Zhou Chen, et al. Finite element analysis of the amputated lower limb: a systematic review and recommendations[J]. Medical Engineering & Physics, 2017, 43: 1–18.
[13] Fausto G, et al. Mechanical characterization of the materials used in prosthetic interfaces: A comparative study[J]. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B, 2021, 109(5): 645-655.
[14] Kong Liangbing, Xu Wei, Zhao Qiang, et al. Additive manufacturing of a prosthetic hand: a case study in 3D printing for healthcare[C]// 2016 IEEE Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO). IEEE, 2016: 1432–1437.
[15] Pearce J M. Economic impact of open-source 3D printing on the prosthetic industry[J]. Journal of Medical Devices, 2015, 9(4): 044501.
[16] Pallari J H, et al. Additive manufacturing for prosthetic applications[J]. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 2010, 29(5): 49-55
[17] Gebler M, Schoot Uiterkamp A J M, Visser C. A global sustainability perspective on 3D printing technologies[J]. Energy Policy, 2014, 74: 158-167.
[18] Chen Li, Zhang Yu, Wang Hao, et al. A total cost of ownership model for 3D printed prosthetics[J]. Additive Manufacturing, 2022, 52: 102678.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 by the authors.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
