Skip to main content
ISPRM 2026 Main banner
Final Program


Final Congress Guide

Engineering and Technology

500 Section - 3D Printing of Prosthetic Devices: A Scoping Review of Clinical Outcomes in Individuals with Limb Loss

Wednesday, May 20, 2026
6:00 PM - 7:30 PM PT
Objectives : Prosthetic devices play an important role in restoring mobility and improving the quality of life for individuals with limb loss or limb difference. Traditional manual fabrication methods are labor-intensive, costly, and often inaccessible in low-resource settings. Digital manufacturing, including 3D printing (additive manufacturing), offers the potential to streamline production and enhance customization. Despite growing interest, most research remains technically focused rather than clinically oriented. This review aimed to consolidate evidence on the real-world benefits and limitations of 3D-printed prostheses, emphasizing patient-centered outcomes.

Design: A scoping review was conducted following the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched using MeSH and keyword strategies. Peer-reviewed studies reporting at least one clinical or functional outcome in human participants with congenital or acquired limb loss using a 3D-printed prosthesis were included.

Results: Of 1,219 records screened, 36 met the inclusion criteria: 27 evaluated upper-limb and 9 evaluated lower-limb prostheses. 35 were published in 2017 or later. Most (26) were case reports or case series, while the remainder (10) included cohort, cross-sectional, and non-randomized experimental designs. Across studies, outcomes generally improved compared with no prosthesis. However, clinical and functional results were highly heterogeneous when 3D-printed prostheses were compared to traditionally manufactured prostheses. For upper limb devices, the Box and Block Test was the most common objective outcome measure, and the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS) was the most frequently used patient-reported outcome measure. Outcome measures for lower-limb prostheses were less consistent and included gait kinematics, the 2-Minute Walk Test, Socket Comfort Score, and the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire.

Conclusion: 3D printing is rapidly transforming prosthetic fabrication, but current evidence is limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneous methodologies, and inconsistent clinical outcome measures. Standardized reporting and more robust experimental studies are needed to inform clinical practice and advance best-practice guidelines.