CAD CAM Responses #4
Description
Collection
Title:
CAD CAM Responses #4
Text:
Dear Mark,
I used a seattle shapemaker system for approx five years and eventually
reverted back to manual production. The reasons are as follows;
-still had to take a cast
-digitising and sending to CF was quicker than modifying, just, but the fit
was poorer and required more adjustment at fitting time, unless I used a
check socket which added an extra step as I don't normally need one, so it
didn't actually save me time,
-the end fitting was less than optimum, but satisfactory for the majority of
users who are elderly and not very mobile,
-very difficult to obtain a satisfactory result with skinny bony stumps,
fleshy green interim stumps = good fit,
- difficult to judge(guess!) the length of socket,
-difficult to judge volume,
-back up support was poor as I am in Australia and it took forever to get
the carver fixed,
-extra cost of blanks and/or blank production which is a real pain!!!!!
but you in the USA may be able to charge for that but here in Australia the
majority of our patients are publicly funded so we have fixed cost per limb
and don't get any extra money for it.)
In summary I loved using it as it was great fun and ground breaking stuff
but it fell by the wayside as it required me to use extra steps that I
didn't use before, taking longer production time for a poorer end result and
costing me more to produce a limb when I still only got the same
reimbursement.
In short, I felt my quality of work fell while production costs and time
increased.
I think that to be widely embraced CADCAM needs to be able to capture shape
without a cast, be more accurate and reliable and produce a socket without
having to produce a positive model, ie patient sticks stump into one end of
machine and socket pops out the other.
But then I think that maybe OSSUR is on the right track (except that they
charge waaay to much for the braided carbon fibre material!! and that they
tend to think that everyone needs a SSS! ) in that you produce the socket
right onto the limb and eliminate all the inbetween production time etc, and
you don't need as many machines or stock, food for thought hey?
Anyway thats my 2c worth except that your reading this in the US and my 2c
is worth only 1c!!
Feel free to post this onto the list if you think it will create some
discussion.
Regards Andrew Cox
__________________________________
I used a seattle shapemaker system for approx five years and eventually
reverted back to manual production. The reasons are as follows;
-still had to take a cast
-digitising and sending to CF was quicker than modifying, just, but the fit
was poorer and required more adjustment at fitting time, unless I used a
check socket which added an extra step as I don't normally need one, so it
didn't actually save me time,
-the end fitting was less than optimum, but satisfactory for the majority of
users who are elderly and not very mobile,
-very difficult to obtain a satisfactory result with skinny bony stumps,
fleshy green interim stumps = good fit,
- difficult to judge(guess!) the length of socket,
-difficult to judge volume,
-back up support was poor as I am in Australia and it took forever to get
the carver fixed,
-extra cost of blanks and/or blank production which is a real pain!!!!!
but you in the USA may be able to charge for that but here in Australia the
majority of our patients are publicly funded so we have fixed cost per limb
and don't get any extra money for it.)
In summary I loved using it as it was great fun and ground breaking stuff
but it fell by the wayside as it required me to use extra steps that I
didn't use before, taking longer production time for a poorer end result and
costing me more to produce a limb when I still only got the same
reimbursement.
In short, I felt my quality of work fell while production costs and time
increased.
I think that to be widely embraced CADCAM needs to be able to capture shape
without a cast, be more accurate and reliable and produce a socket without
having to produce a positive model, ie patient sticks stump into one end of
machine and socket pops out the other.
But then I think that maybe OSSUR is on the right track (except that they
charge waaay to much for the braided carbon fibre material!! and that they
tend to think that everyone needs a SSS! ) in that you produce the socket
right onto the limb and eliminate all the inbetween production time etc, and
you don't need as many machines or stock, food for thought hey?
Anyway thats my 2c worth except that your reading this in the US and my 2c
is worth only 1c!!
Feel free to post this onto the list if you think it will create some
discussion.
Regards Andrew Cox
__________________________________
Citation
“CAD CAM Responses #4,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 5, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/216067.