PubMed1998
The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of volume determinations using the commercially available Seattle ShapeMaker CAD/CAM system for production of prosthetic sockets and to compare it with the commercially available CAPOD system. We used three types of reference objects for volumetric determinations: steel tubes, plaster of Paris casts, and residual limb models. Three different sizes were examined for each type of object. Volume measurements with the two CAD/CAM systems were compared with measurements obtained by water filling, water immersion, or mathematical calculation (tubes only). We found an inconsistent systematic error of less than 3.1% for ShapeMaker and no systematic error for CAPOD. Random errors, represented by the coefficient of variation, were below 1.3% for the ShapeMaker and, in most cases, below 0.4% for the CAPOD. Theoretical changes in volume of 2.6% and 0.8% are possible to detect with these CAD/CAM systems. In our opinion, both systems have sufficient precision for routine clinical use in prosthetics and orthotics. However, in our study, the ShapeMaker committed larger random and systematic errors than CAPOD. This means that, according to our study, CAPOD offers the best possibility to determine and detect small changes in residual limb volume as a function of time.