A novel video-based method using projected light to measure trunk volumes during respiration

Development of low-cost and personalized external silicone breast prosthesis produced by additive manufacturing for women who have undergone mastectomy: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to develop a low-cost and personalized method for external breast prosthesis production.

METHODS

The projected light method was used for the acquisition of the 3D geometry of the left breast of a healthy 29-year-old woman, 69 kg and 1.69 m. The 3D modeling software Blender was used to make the prosthesis model and mold with adjustments to the model's mesh, such as smoothing, assigning thickness, and creating the walls of the prosthesis mold. Two counter-molds were created. The pieces were manufactured on the 3D printer Stella Lite 3 using polylactic acid filament. Finally, the silicone was pigmented, and the mold was filled.

FINDINGS

Prototype 1 of the prosthesis was produced using a mold without a counter-mold, which resulted in a prosthesis of 495 g, considered heavy compared to traditional prostheses for the same breast size. To solve this issue, a counter-mold with pins was used to produce prototype 2 with a mass of 393 g, 20.6% lighter than prototype 1. Prototype 3 was made with a central-volume counter-mold and presented a mass of 355 g, a reduction of 28.3% compared to prototype 1. The definitive breast prosthesis was made with the pin counter-mold with a different silicone. It has nipple and areola pigmentation and a mass of 294 g, 25.2% lighter than prototype 2.

INTERPRETATION

The results suggest that the projected light method and additive manufacturing are potential tools for developing external breast prostheses, which may improve the health conditions and quality of life of mastectomized women.

Are Action Sport Cameras Accurate Enough for 3D Motion Analysis? A Comparison With a Commercial Motion Capture System

The aim of this study was to assess the precision and accuracy of an Action Sport Camera (ASC) system (4 GoPro Hero3+ Black) by comparison with a commercial motion capture (MOCAP) system (4 ViconMX40). Both systems were calibrated using the MOCAP protocol and the 3D markers coordinates of a T-shaped tool were reconstructed, concurrently. The 3D precision was evaluated by the differences in the reconstructed position using a Bland-Altman test, while accuracy was assessed by a rigid bar test (Wilcoxon rank sum). To examine the accuracy of the ASC in respect to the knee flexion angles, a jump and gait task were also examined using one subject (Wilcoxon rank sum). The ASC system provided a maximum error of 2.47 mm, about 10 times higher than the MOCAP (0.21 mm). The reconstructed knee flexion angles were highly correlated (r²>0.99) and showed no significant differences between systems (<2.5°; p>0.05). As expected, the MOCAP obtained better 3D precision and accuracy. However, we show such differences have little practical effect on reconstructed 3D kinematics.