Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

CAD-CAM: ScanAny

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Marchant, Jul 21, 2006.

  1. Marchant

    Marchant Welcome New Poster


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    I've come across a company called Orthotech which is selling there ScanAny Cad-Cam system. It uses 2 cameras in conjuction with a lined sock to get a 3 D picture of the foot.

    There appears to be several concerns: :confused:
    Parallax alignment of the camera to the foot.
    No research on the accuracy of the scan.
    It does not appear to measure the alignment of the heel.

    Has any body come across this system? What experience have you had?

    Any information would be appreciated.
    RM
     
  2. Admin2

    Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

  3. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    Welcome to Podiatry Arena
    Its the only opitcal foot scanning system, I know of that needs to use a sock on the foot during data capture - I have not been able to find out why - no other system does this. Being 2 camera is a good thing as it allows better 3D capture compared to the older one camera systems.
    Not an issue that I would be concerned about. Accuracy studies on optical scanners have not shown this to be a problem - the shape is comparable to that done with a plaster cast.
    There has been nothing specufic on this system, but optical foot scanners in general are incredibily accurate --- (see the thread linked above) .... the only problem is that they can be incredibiliy accurate at scanning the foot you are holding in the wrong position (we have not yet resolved the issue of the correct position of the foot yet).
    Plaster casting does not measure the alignment of the heel either, but assume you meant to say it does not capture the posterior aspect of the heel. This may or may not be a problem. Most CAD design systems associated with optical scanners have mathematical algorithms built into them that have assumptions associated with them - it just depends on how comfortable you are with the assumptions. Some optical scanners do capture more of the posterior calcaneus than others -- I not sure about the ScanAny here (having a closer look on Monday).
     
  4. martinharvey

    martinharvey Active Member

    Scanning for Orthoses

    I'm curious as to the validity of scanning an unloaded foot that is presumably being retained manually in sub - talar neutral (hopefully!), and, constructing a functional device therefrom. I can see some benefits in using such a method to fabricate an accomodative insole, perhaps for a cavus foot. But, when you are constructing a functional device is not trial posting and dynamic Gait evaluation thereof a better tool, albeit more labour intensive?

    Any thoughts?

    Martin :confused:
     
  5. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    Where did you get the information from that optical scans are unloaded?

    They are no different than taking a plaster cast (I did not know that plaster casts had been validated!) - you can place the rearfoot in neutral (...if you want to or in another position if you have got over STJ neutral) and load any part of the forefoot you want to using the exactly same suspension technique used in traditional casting.

    CP
     
  6. martinharvey

    martinharvey Active Member

    Why we do what we do

    ...... Craig Payne 26th April 2005, 09:32 PM

    I assume Craig, that you still hold the same views expressed in the above. That is exactly my point. Manual alignment will always have variables in it. By an 'unloaded' foot I meant one that is not actually being used statically or dynamically as the interface beween our body mass and the supporting surface. I fail to see how any degree of suspension techniques can mimic the GRF in an ambulating foot. Especially one which is surmounted by functional patholgies such as; functional short leg, circumducted gait, hip hiking and various antalgic anticipations due to upper musculo skeletal pathology. By the way, I dont recall stating in my post that I considered plaster casts 'validated'

    I accept that it is perfectly possible to spend thousands on an optical system, followed by a not inconsiderable amount on the resultant 'prescription' othoses generated thereby and THEN start analysing their actual effect but why? if there are so many potential innaccuracies inherent, not least because:
    By trial posting from an 'average' insole - i suppose most of us have an individual viewpoint on what is average- , we can assess the effect that our intervention is having on the foot, the rest of the kinetic chain and accessory structures. It is relatively easy to change functional posts on a trial bed and one can also incorporate accomodation into the insole as the prescription is formulated up by the practitioner. Many leading authorities take the view that "Orthotic fabrication is as much art as science" (Whittle 2005) and other studies have indicated that "Orthotic prescription may be improved if the gait is monitored with the Patient wearing several different types or configurations of Orthosis" (Lehmann et al. 1987).

    Before we become seduced by technology for technologys sake, I suggest that we need to consider the purpose of our actions. If that purpose is to create a perfectly accomodative support for a statically posed foot, be it loaded, unloaded, congruant, or not, then optical scanning systems can undoubtedly do the job better than any other. Subject of course to the accuracy of the software.

    Personally, my purpose is to intervene in an identified pathology in the most effective way I can, which is why I won't personally be buying such an item soon (no criticism of the undoubtedly brilliant technology is implied by that statement). Instead, I will make clinical decisions based on subjective symptomology, kinematic observation, analysis, hypothesis, formulation of provisional orthotic design, trial and revision, until I, and my Patient, feel we have effected an improvement. I must say, that I agree with Rose(1983) when he proposes that "observing gait and noting abnormalities is of little value in itself. It needs to be followed by gait assessment , which is the synthesis of these observations with other information about the subject obtained from the history and physical examination, combined with the intelligence and experience of the observer"

    The more reliant we become on technology utilising preset algorithms unknown to the user, the further away we get from needing to use, or indeed understand, any systematic methodology, other than point, Click!, and "Thankyou, your orthotics will arrive in the post - here's my Bill" Personally, I think that is a retrograde step.

    In conclusion, I can agree with the initial proposition in this, from your 2005 posting
    but never this from your same post:
    Martin
     
  7. PodAus

    PodAus Active Member

    The Scan-Any system is just another casting tool using a graduated sock (stripes on sock give the web-cams a calibration/reference). Understanding 'the technology' is understanding how it will save you time, mess, consumable costs, etc. in orthotic prescription - not 'the accuracy'.
    It's fairly obvious the prescribed orthotic is just the clinical tool applied at a starting point, and modified in response to the patient's response. As with other technology, the users costs are factored into the hardware, software and subsequent subscription upgrade path.
    If practitioners are concerned with really saving time (plaster casting is slow, messy and doesn't improve outcomes), and $ (technology increases the costs of orthotic production compared to Labs), whilst improving outcomes, they must focus on the risk factors of the patient and listen to their feedback, not focus on the technology...
     
  8. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    OK - I will have to take back what I said above about the ScanAny system - I got to see it yesterday and I was originally confused. It uses a two comera system to photograph the lines on a special sock and software reconstructs a 3-d shape from that. It is not an optical (laser) scanner like all other systems on the market which is what my comments above were refering to and which all the reliability studies have been done on..
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2006
  9. martinharvey

    martinharvey Active Member

    The next step

    Craig,
    Given that all of these systems are similar, is it that manufacturers are stuck in a loop?, just ringing the changes on the oppositions software and hardware. I have looked at these and force plate systems and keep coming back to kinematography. Mainly because it tells me what I want to know, ie: how the foot and accessory structures are moving during gait and what happens when I post here, and there, etc'. Its revisitable and uncomplicated, and relatively cheap (always dear to my heart!) Is there anybody doing work on orthotic solutions from multiple inputs? Ie . in shoe sensors, kinematograhic markers and EMG's and rolling the data together in a format that lends itself to CAM? So much of the analytical hardware and software currently around seems OK for a gait lab but impractical for a day - to - day clinic, while the static scan systems suffer from all the drawbacks you have outlined before. When you look at the technology in your phone or PDA and then compare some of the technology we are offered its hardly cutting edge is it. Is it that Podiatrists are trying to design systems without being au-fait with current and potential future technology or that Technologists are designing systems without finding out what Pods actually need? Do we use too much technology or not enough, for example; why we don't involve fluid dynamicists in orthotic design, surely suitably encapsulated non - Newtonian rheopectic 'fluids' would lend themselves ideally to moderating pathological plantar force 'hot spots' instead of some of the substances we commonly use for orthotic material.

    No wonder old Country Chiropodists like me get confused. :confused:

    Regards,

    Martin
     
  10. Phil Wells

    Phil Wells Active Member

    Martin

    I think you may be missing the point of why digital image technology is potentially so important. It does NOT attempt (Or shouldn't) to do anything other than to capture the image of the foot as defined by the practitioner.
    I am currently designing a system that integrates into my bespoke CAD package. Its sole aim is to get the image of the foot to my lab ASAP. This can result in the patient receiving their insoles within 48 hours. It can take images non and weight bearing and potentially dynamically, is super dooper accurate etc blah blah blah. However, it is quick and for some patients this is the be all and end all, especially in the at risk foot.
    I doubt it will fit into your treatment approach but does offer a real solution and doesn't attempt to anything other than improve the time required to get a pair of bespoke insoles.

    Cheers

    Phil
     
  11. martinharvey

    martinharvey Active Member

    insoles V orthotics

    Hi Phil,

    I notice you, quite rightly IMHO, use insoles as the noun to describe your accomodative supports. Not so in certain other cases, where scanned insoles are described as orthotics . In my simplistic view I understand orthotics to be functional and insoles to be accomodative. Ie: ορθώς - ortho = rightly, truly, from the greek root.

    From a cost / benefit viewpoint (including equipment costs), how does a scanned insole benefit me, as a private practitioner, instead of me providing accomodative insoles from stock blanks which I post or trim? - Can anything be faster that that for the Chronometrically-challenged Pt?. Or, in the case of more complex requirements for support, from just sending the lab a written Rx with a simple diagram by fax or email attachment? OR am i totally wrong here and does any system (including yours) allow the production of truly functional orthotics - without me making manual additions?

    ??

    Martin
     
  12. njw podski

    njw podski Welcome New Poster

    Hi all,
    Not familiar with scan ezy system, but have had some experience with the 3D scanner being used by Virtual orthotics in Sydney. Some UWS students have had cause to use this system on clinic. I'd comment that it's fast, clean, easy to use and certainly looks impressive. Like all these things it will be interesting to see this type of technology leads.

    cheers,

    Nathan
     
  13. definition

    Martin

    Not sure how you figure the difference between insoles and orthotics. If insoles are accomodative and orthotics functional then they are ALL orthotics. Regardless of how it is manufactured Almost ANY device will change the function of the foot. A pork pie shoved in the shoe will change the function of the foot!

    A definition given me by an Orthotist is that an orthotic is any device applied externally which changes the function of the body. This included things like latex wrist splints and polyprop jackets.

    Here are some more definitions:-


    Also called orthosis; a mechanical appliance such as a leg brace or splint that is specially designed to control, correct, or compensate for impaired limb function.

    www.nationalmssociety.org/O - R.asp

    Any device applied to or around the body in the care of physical impairment or disability, commonly used to control foot mechanics.
    sportsmedicine.about.com/library/glossary/blglossaryO.htm

    Generally, a brace that helps support a limb and improve its functioning.
    www.ric.org/community/glossary.php

    An orthopedic appliance or apparatus used to support, align, prevent or correct deformities or to improve the function of movable parts of the body
    www.mdis.org/Library/Glossary/

    Regards
    Robert
     
  14. Phil Wells

    Phil Wells Active Member

    Martin
    Again, just to simplfy things, a digital image scannershould replace plaster of paris casting or the use of foam impression box's. It is not a treatment modality or new way of treating the patient.
    Re the name, I totally agree with Robert. Anything going into the shoe is going to have a functional impact = orthotic.
    The image captured does rely on two things - how good you are at casting and how good the labs software is (Not all are craeted equally). A good CAD software package should be able to do EVERYTHING that plaster of paris can but quicker etc.
    Can you, using off-the-shelf orthoses make a TOTAL/FULL contact insole for a Charcot foot with very specific additions for ulcer sites etc in under 24 hours? I doubt it.
    As I said earlier, this may not suit you but please try and understand what the technology offers before making eroneous assumptions about all technology.

    Phil
     
  15. martinharvey

    martinharvey Active Member

    Forgive an Old Country Chiropodist

    Phil,
    I always welcome simplicity – from any direction, and genuinely appreciate your effort to educate me. However, I must point out that I can, vaguely, understand the concept of digital mapping, even so far as dimly grasping the formation of point clouds from XYZ co-ordinates and their translation into 1 and 0.

    Also, I believe, if you will revisit my postings you find questions posed rather than assumptions presented as de facto. I.e.: “how does a scanned insole benefit me…?” and “ does any system allow the production of truly functional orthotics…?” etc.

    I wont dwell overlong on the concept of a pork pie as an orthotic, and we do have to be careful about the construction of definitions i.e.: “A definition given me by an Orthotist is that an orthotic is any device applied externally which changes the function of the body.” Post hoc ergo propter hoc – a gun is an orthotic, because if you are shot with one it will certainly change the function of the body. But, lets pass on from tautology in the rhetorical sense;

    I genuinely believe that there is confusion about a 1. Functional device (an Orthotic – for simplicity), which can be formulated and used with the intent to affect the intrinsic mechanics of a foot (and other parts of the kinetic chain) – hopefully beneficially, and 2. An Accommodative device (an Insole – for simplicity), which will simply give the maximum supportive interface to a foot in the position it was in when the scan was made – be that good or bad. I think it behooves us as clinicians to clearly identify the intent of our device by its label.

    The term orthotic for ANY type of insole that fits in a shoe ( I will again pass over the pork pie), is IMHO over used in Podiatry and Foot health. The word itself has become a fabulous talisman, one of the Hermetic's ‘secret words of power’ and a magic prophylactic and panacea for all ills of the pedal extremity. “Tungiasis Madame? Hold on, let me just sell you an Orthotic for that”. The more technology that can be used in its formulation, apparently, the more efficacious its role as a Totem. Indeed, on the subject of Magic, ScanAny state in their brochure “While other systems ‘magically’ obtain sub-talar positioning, the ScanAny system allows the patient to be positioned, by the practitioner..” This is not to criticise the undoubtedly excellent machine, BUT, it is a tool, and any tool is only as good as 1. Its suitability for the purpose to which people apply it – a digital micrometer is fairly useless to bail out your rowing boat, and 2. The knowledge and understanding of the user – if you don’t know which way up to hold the bailer you will sink.

    The more we concentrate on the technology per se , the more and better accommodative insoles we will produce, but will they correct, of themselves, specific mechanical pathologies in the foot, lower limb and higher kinetic chain? Of course not. As devices become more sophisticated, particularly in Optical Scanning Holography with multi pupil heterodyne scanning, the building up of three dimensional images combining plantar, lateral and dorsal aspects in digital format will become easier. With such image records, the possibility of inserting algorithms in the digital map to intrinsically alter the resultant CAM’ed Orthotics opens up many possibilities. But we are not there yet.

    Foot orthoses have been developed on many different levels, both empirically and theoretically over the last 100 plus years. This process has seen developments range from Whitman’s fearsome steel foot brace with its exaggerated supination , through the Roberts brace and Schuster’s slightly less fearsome Roberts – Whitman device to Morton’s extension orthotic based on his theory of the Atavistic and hyper mobile short ray. The 1940’s saw Murray and Levy developing moulding techniques which Root built on in the 1950’s, although it is probably to Silverman, also in the 1950’s, that we owe the concept of stabilizing the heel in order to control the over – pronating foot. Which underlying assumption seems to lie in numerous orthotic designs today. All the foregoing developments have sought to influence foot function, with varying degrees of success, and some without even a recognisable insole interface with the plantar foot, i.e. Whitman’s brace.

    I am certainly not anti technology, but I am cautious about loudly propounding anything as the definitive holy grail of pedal biomechanics. Some interesting optical technology is being currently applied, primarily in shoe design and fabrication, see here http://www.precision3d.co.uk/ which could just lead onto some of the digital map manipulation described earlier but we shall see what the future holds.

    So, in conclusion of an over long post, yes, I think I do understand what the technology offers, and its undoubtedly of value to certain practitioners in certain circumstances. BUT and it’s a big but, its only as good as the user, and the users understanding of basic biomechanics applied to the foot and wider body.

    Regards,

    Martin
     
  16. Phil Wells

    Phil Wells Active Member

    Martin
    I do understand where you are coming from and definatley agree that all technology is only as good as the person using. The same is also true of an orthoses - whether from casts or a modified pre-made as you may use.
    Re the design of orthoses, the software I use is very flexible and doesn't use best fit technology and will produce a device that is functional in the the true sense of the word but again this may be wasted if the cast/image is in-correct. The technolgy may also be used to take a snap shot of the foot during gait to create a different style of impression. Once the image is in the system it is then possible to apply reverse engineering techniques with a bit of predictive modelling if needed. The problems with all of this is that all the clever stuff relies on the 1st image being good one i.e. the old adage = 'crap in, crap out'.
    However I don't agree that the more we use technolgy, the less functional devices will be - the exact opposite from my experience.
    What I am trying to do with technology is too answer specific questions posed by my customers - how can I get MY orthoses faster and cheaper, how can I speed up my casting process and make it less messy, how can I be more effecient?
    The image capture system answers these questions at a price that enables me to 'lend' the system out FOC.
    Many practitioners are capable of prescribing a bespoke device, fitting it and getting excellent results without the need to constantly 'tweek' the device. This may suit your approach and again, I can see where you are coming from with this method. However, those of us that use the bespoke FFO approach do exactly what you say you are doing in your treatment approach with hopefully the same results - assume we all fix the patient?
    As an orthoses manufcature you may feel that I am biased or on the big sell but as you can see, I have never done this as per one or two others on the arena.

    The key point is to all of rambling is that technology should be solution based and not seeking to create a new, alternative answer to what we all know works for us as individuals.

    Cheers

    Phil
     
  17. martinharvey

    martinharvey Active Member

    My wish list - sorry you asked?

    Hi Phil,
    You make many valid points in your post and I suspect that we share more common ground than at first may be supposed.

    To summarise points of apparent agreement:
    1. Well structured FFO’s work – I agree wholeheartedly. For more than a decade I have been providing them as a major part of any treatment plan formulated to address gait and posture problems.
    2. GIGO – self evident, just try to get sense out of a call centre operator.
    3. Technology solutions should be needs driven – **YES! I want some (see below)
    4. Faster, effective, cheaper, less messy orthotics – **YES! I want some (see below)

    Apparent disagreement:
    The more we use technology, the less functional devices will be – Not what I meant. My point is that the more we use technology, and the more user friendly it is, the less we are driven to fully understand that technology and the algorithms controlling its output. We rely on the technology provider understanding exactly what the clinician wants, and perhaps the practitioner loses, through simple atrophy, the clinical expertise needed to evaluate and assess the solutions suitability in single instances. The clinician then becomes entirely dependent on the hardware and software doing what it claims to do, whether it does or not. Some will, some won’t – how does the clinician assess this? Of course this is not insurmountable, and if technology provider and clinician know enough about each others needs and solutions then it can be avoided.

    **YES I want some :My wish list = a scanning system that will give me a 3D, accurate model of a foot with constrained scalability. Lets say its scanned in RCSP which could be from 1 deg varus to 14 deg valgus. Then, by clicking on a part of the foot model on screen, I can ‘morph’ it into what I believe is the best configuration consistent with its structure. All the while the programme is generating a paradigm of an FFO that will give the model I have constructed on-screen. That’s just for starters. Also included in this ‘Pedomorph’ model are reference points further up the chain, lets say lateral malleoli, medial epicondyles of femur , ASIS, and three or so XYZ points on the spine. Now – as I morph, I’m also observing the reference points above. Perhaps compensating for that genu valgum, levelling that pelvic tilt, compensating for that lordosis, scoliosis , kyphosis, levelling the shoulders, pulling the centre of gravity anteriorly or posteriorly. All the while the linked scales in the software are changing these points in concert. I.e. I pull the foot up in the sagittal plane while keeping it transversely level and the knee and hip joints move XYZ points accordingly. I have an on-screen model of the outcome I am seeking. The clever little algorithms have kept on clicking away and I now find I want a FFO with ** varus posting, ** forefoot posting, **heel raise. And, if I’ve gone outside the manufacturing tolerances of the orthotic it tells me I need a ** heel flange on the footwear and ** sole and heel thickness. If footwear is needed it gives an illustrated list of the footwear styles, colours and prices available. All of this has been shown to the Pt in real time. With them sitting by my desk, asking questions etc as we go. I get agreement on cost (we have my mark-up embedded in the program), I press an order button and my Rx order is uploaded to your server, which confirms details, checks production schedules and sends a screen back with confirmation and expected delivery date.

    That’s all. Simple isn’t it. Oh, and the orthotics have intrinsics built into them as well, say; a la Whitman and his plantar anterior tubercule support (sorry about that)

    On the subject of cost. Any system that ‘loans’ me equipment places non clinical pressure variables on my clinical decision. I.e. “I’ve only done 3 orthotics this week, my ‘loan’ plan calls for four. Perhaps I should flog this Pt a pair, even if I’m not totally sure he needs them”

    You are in business to make a profit. Legally, morally and decently, but still a profit. There is no such thing as a free lunch. You HAVE to amortise your ‘loan’ costs through structured usage plans and loaded orthotic prices. If you don’t, you wont be in business long.

    IMHO your equipment has to be either “pile ‘em high and sell ‘em cheap” so that its in the level a practice would pay for , say, a hand held Doppler – three or four hundred quid, which most moderately successful practices would fund out of running instrument costs. - Which has to be impossible (Please tell me its not!!) OR a fair price for a fair product that does what it says on the tin, in which case a practice will make a decision on capital expenditure and orthotic prices that don’t have your necessary amortisations built in.

    Anyway, once again, I hope I have proved I’m not anti – technology. I’m only anti replacing a fully integrated manual system that works with a technological answer that is only half the story.

    Just to give you a chuckle, the link I provided to that 3D modelling company, they tell me they are launching a ‘simple plantar scanner’ shortly. Oh No!, not another one!

    Dont forget to send me a link to your products

    Best Regards,

    Martin
     
  18. Definitions

    Martin

    To clarify a point you made earlier:-

    "I genuinely believe that there is confusion about a 1. Functional device (an Orthotic – for simplicity), which can be formulated and used with the intent to affect the intrinsic mechanics of a foot (and other parts of the kinetic chain) – hopefully beneficially, and 2. An Accommodative device (an Insole – for simplicity), which will simply give the maximum supportive interface to a foot in the position it was in when the scan was made – be that good or bad. I think it behooves us as clinicians to clearly identify the intent of our device by its label."

    Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that, in your opinion, the difference between an orthotic and an insole is the INTENT with which it is issued rather than the actual effect it has? An "accomodative support" which reduces the decelleration of the pronating foot is an insole, the exact same device issued with that specific outcome in mind is an orthotic?

    If so how does this fit with any of the (referenced) definations? How can anyone use ANY type of in shoe device WITHOUT the intent to
    "control foot mechanics" (www.nationalmssociety.org/O - R.asp)
    "improve its functioning."(www.ric.org/community/glossary.php)
    "improve the function of movable parts of the body www.mdis.org/Library/Glossary/)
    or
    "compensate for impaired limb function."
    www.nationalmssociety.org/O - R.asp

    Surely even a cushion under the ball of the foot is compensating for impaired function, the function being Weight bearing without crossing the maximum tissue stress threshold and the impairment being (for example) reduced thickness of the ff padding.

    You are right to pick me up for proposing an unreferenced definition. It was bad and wrong of me and i am as we speak wearing my coarse hair vest. :( As you say we must be careful in how we construct our definitions particualarly if proposing our own opinion in the guise of hard fact. This being the case Would you mind sharing the origin of your definition ie:-

    "I genuinely believe that there is confusion about a 1. Functional device (an Orthotic – for simplicity), which can be formulated and used with the intent to affect the intrinsic mechanics of a foot (and other parts of the kinetic chain) – hopefully beneficially, and 2. An Accommodative device (an Insole – for simplicity), which will simply give the maximum supportive interface to a foot in the position it was in when the scan was made – be that good or bad.

    Or are you the only one allowed to propose unreferenced definations? :confused:

    Regards
    Robert
     
  19. Phil Wells

    Phil Wells Active Member

    Martin
    I see where you are coming from re the input of technolgy 'generalising' orthotic design - I do agree to a point.
    Re your wish list, I have seen exactly what you are looking for in the dental/maxillo-facial recontruction CAD world. However to get all the data required, a MRI scan is required.
    In the case of the MF work, it allows morphing to be done to the bone while at the same time morphing the facial features to see the end result - very cool stuff.
    This can be applied to orthoses but the price will be too much for our industry.
    I may contact you privately re the costing of scanners as it is very usefull to get a 2nd opinion- but the price is getting close to the ideal!

    Cheers

    Phil
     
  20. martinharvey

    martinharvey Active Member

    I wanna be a dentist

    Talking about Dentists. In the health centre car park where I work (just to clarify, I actually do my work in the health centre - not the car park) there is a pecking order to cars: really old - healthcare assistants. fairly old - mine and the nurses, not so old - the GP's, brand spanking new BMW 5 series - dentist, nearly new BMW Z4 - same dentist ... on saturday mornings.

    I'm just thinking aloud here (sorry Robert, Harvey 2006), obviously MRI is way above our price boundary, but could musculo skeletal structural imaging be done with ultrasound, in order to give the data map? I realise its velocity of propagation is much less than waves in the electromagnetic frequencies. But, I have seen the end results when it is used to provide modern foetal 'movies' (with sound track & music no less), and the technology has come on leaps and bounds, since I first encountered it, in 1900 and frozen to death, with my own kids. Facial recognition was easily possible in the last one I saw with grandaughter No2. Also, Ultrasonic transducers have become much cheaper now and processing power faster and cheaper. Any thoughts?

    Robert, please take off your hair shirt (unless there is something you are not telling us - shades of the DaVinci code?) Come on though - I prefaced my statement with "I genuinly believe ...." I think that identifies quite clearly that I am not proposing a referenced fact - its just an opinion held in my aged head. As for functional opposed to accomodative, again, these are personal labels, I know what I mean and I suspect many others do as well. We could argue all night and the following day about identifying the point at which something becomes intentionally 'functional'. You could probably propose that air trapped in the footwear will pressurise slightly when the foot moves and resist the movement of the foot by a zillionth of a Newton, ergo, air is a 'funtional orthotic' AH! but is it a device?, well if you are a creationist then yes it is because God made it etc.......

    Also, on the subject of referencing ( I KNOW i'm going to regret saying this - but here goes) referencing, of itself, does not prove a fact. It identifies an opinion, and or research, based on whatever methodology was popular or held valid at the time of the research, by the people doing it, or their peers. Sometimes it is a very learned opinion and a methodology that stands against the academic erosion of decades and centuries , sometimes not! Very often, in all sciences, yesterdays reference becomes todays shibboleth to shatter. If I was writing this post in my youth I could have said "27 million angels can stand on the head of a pin" (aquinas et al. 1231) - at the time all the peer reviews would have concurred with that 'fact', in all probability, if you did NOT concur, you would most likely have been burned at the stake. The fact I have referenced it does not make it true. It just references it (please! no posts about angels - I do have a clinic to run). Just to labour the point, I followed one of your links above (www.nationalmssociety.org/O - R.asp) and picked at random
    Not a reference in sight, and I think Whitman (whitman 1917) would argue about
    as his were made of STEEL

    hasta la Vista.

    Martin
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page