Page 531 - IJB-10-2

International Journal of Bioprinting 3D printing of custom mallet splints

Table 2. Percentage satisfaction of Stack vs. 3D-printed splint qualities
% Not satisfied at all % Not very satisfied % More or less satisfied % Quite satisfied % Very satisfied
Stack 3D-printed Stack 3D-printed Stack 3D-printed Stack 3D-printed Stack 3D-printed
Dimensions 0 0 20 0 50 10 20 40 10 50
Weight 0 0 10 0 40 0 40 50 10 50
Ease in 0 0 40 0 20 10 20 40 20 50
adjusting
Safe and secure 0 10 30 10 40 20 20 10 10 60
Durability 10 0 10 0 10 10 20 60 50 30
Easy to use 10 0 20 0 40 10 20 40 10 50
Comfort 10 0 20 0 20 0 20 40 30 60
Effective 0 0 10 10 60 10 20 10 10 70
Easy to remove 10 0 10 0 30 10 30 20 20 70
for hand
washing
Easy to reapply 10 0 0 0 50 0 30 30 10 70
after hand
washing

patient said they would choose the 3D-printed splint again (ix) In relation to ease of removing for hand washing,
if they had reason to use it (90%). 70% of patients rated the 3D-printed splint as very
(i) In relation to dimensions, 50% of patients rated satisfactory compared to 20% for the Stack splint.
the 3D-printed splint as being very satisfactory (x) In relation to ease of reapplying after hand washing,
compared to 10% for the Stack splint. 70% of patients rated the 3D-printed splint as very
(ii) In relation to the weight of the splint, 50% of patients satisfactory compared to 10% for the Stack splint.
rated the 3D-printed splint as very satisfactory 3.5. Patient feedback
compared to 10% for the Stack splint.
Most patients commented on how much lighter the
(iii) In relation to ease in adjusting, 50% of patients rated 3D-printed splint was. They also commented that the
the 3D-printed splint as being very satisfactory 3D-printed splint was at times more difficult to remove for
compared to 20% for the Stack splint. hand hygiene because it had a tighter fit than the generic
(iv) In relation to how safe and secure the splint felt, Stack splint (Figures 3 and 4). This was contrary to the
60% of patients rated the 3D-printed splint as very original belief that the Stack splint would be tighter because
satisfactory compared to 10% for the Stack splint. it was applied for the first 7 days post injury when the finger
would most likely be swollen. Patients cited this tightness as
(v) In relation to durability, 30% of patients rated the a positive during the questionnaire. They felt the splint was
3D-printed splint as very satisfactory in comparison
to 50% for the Stack splint. more comfortable because it fit neatly. Patients commented
that they felt immediate relief when the 3D-printed splint
(vi) In relation to ease of use, 50% of patients rated the was applied after the generic Stack splint.
3D-printed splint as very satisfactory compared to
10% for the Stack splint. Patients reported their injured finger swelling and
decreasing at times throughout the study. Some patients
(vii) In relation to comfort, 60% of patients rated the developed skin complications when wearing the generic
3D-printed splint as very satisfactory compared to Stack splint. The lack of a custom fit caused the splint to
30% for the Stack splint. rub against the skin, leading to blisters and discomfort.
(viii) In relation to effectiveness, 70% of patients rated the Figure 5A shows an example of an ill-fitting generic Stack
3D-printed splint as very satisfactory compared to splint, and Figure 5B shows skin maceration secondary to
10% for the Stack splint. an ill-fitting generic Stack splint.

Volume 10 Issue 2 (2024) 523 doi: 10.36922/ijb.1963