ArticleBiomedical engineering online2026
Smartphone photogrammetry for prosthetics and orthotics: accuracy and reliability across upper-limb, lower-limb, and AFO casts.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional shape capture in prosthetics and orthotics (P&O) relies on plaster casting of a positive mold, which is then hand-rectified to the desired shape. While effective under expert practice, this workflow is labor-intensive, equipment-dependent, and difficult to archive or share. Digital approaches using structured-light scanners address some of these limitations but remain costly and require dedicated training. This study evaluated whether smartphone photogrammetry can accurately and reliably capture prosthetic and orthotic cast geometries, and assessed its usability in comparison to a clinical structured-light scanner for integration into clinical workflows.
resultsA clinical-grade structured-light scanner (EinScan H2) served as the reference and demonstrated small volumetric and dimensional errors, at 0.21 ± 0.15% and 0.35 ± 0.18 mm, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) greater than 0.9999. Relative to this reference, across 12 cast models (upper limb, lower limb, and ankle-foot orthosis), smartphone photogrammetry achieved a volumetric error of 0.89 ± 0.68% and a dimensional error of 0.89 ± 0.51 mm; the mean surface point-to-point distance was 0.24 ± 0.19 mm. Reliability across operators was near-perfect (ICCs ≥ 0.9997). Usability data showed approximately 62 photographs and 88 s per capture for photogrammetry (about 12 min cloud processing) versus 34 s capture (about 85 s desktop processing) for the reference scanner. Photogrammetry scored higher on the System Usability Scale (79 versus 58).
conclusionsOn casts, smartphone photogrammetry produced accurate and reliable meshes with favorable perceived usability and minimal hardware demands. These findings support its integration into digital workflows in P&O, particularly for scanning rectified positive casts and other stable geometries. Further multi-site evaluations on live limbs should determine acceptable capture-time thresholds and effective stabilization strategies to ensure clinical feasibility in routine practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.