Design of a Rapid Fabrication Custom-Fit CROW Orthosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Client, Anderson Orthopedics, is looking to use Additive Manufacturing to improve their manufacturing time for a support device called the Charcot Restraint Orthotic Walker (CROW). The function of a CROW Orthosis is to offload and support the patients’ foot and support the existing sole geometry when the joints in the foot are weakened and cannot properly support weight. Patients that require a CROW orthosis have a high risk of lower limb amputation if they continue to load their foot without proper support. Thus, it is critical that patients receive their CROW orthosis as soon as possible. Excessively long manufacturing times delay patients from starting their treatment and increase their risk of lower limb amputation. The objectives of this project were to design a 3D Printable CROW Orthosis that performs the same as the current design but takes less time to manufacture than the current design. The objective was to have the new manufacturing process take less than 15 hours and cost less than CAD$1,000. The new design must be able to use in an environment like Winnipeg, where the temperature ranges from -30°C to 30°C, as well as prevent water from seeping in. The design must also support the weight of the patient without yielding. In addition, the design should last the treatment period, which is typically 1 year. The final design took a modular approach to solve the Client’s problems. The outer shell is composed of four MJF Nylon 123D printed components, which split the limb between anterior and posterior with segments for the calf, and two for the ankle-foot. Both posterior components glued to one another and further stiffened with aluminum rods. To provide user comfort, a lined PPT foam is glued into the inside of the shells. A rocker sole designed into it to reduce the manufacturing time. Ratcheting BOA straps are used to hold the posterior and anterior shells together, as well as provide easy adjustability for the patient. Further adjustability for swelling was accommodated through a square wave pattern between the anterior and posterior shells. The time to print and cool the parts of the design is 24 hours. The cost associated with this design was CAD$1,945.93. These results did not meet the objectives for the manufacturing process but do allow for fewer technician hours at Anderson Orthopedics. For the design, the material that was identified is waterproof and functions within the specified temperature range. The FEA showed that yielding does occur during the more extreme loading cases of the walking cycle. The final design and manufacturing process did not meet all of objectives that were established, and for those that were not met, future recommendations were made for they could be met in future work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".