![Various grasp types as outlined by Yang et al. (2015) [44]. Image sourced from “Grasp Type. Revisited: A Modern Perspective on A Classical Feature for Vision”. The authors obtained the permission to reuse this figure from original authors.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390448075/figure/fig5/AS:11431281404572034@1745654291949/Various-grasp-types-as-outlined-by-Yang-et-al-2015-44-Image-sourced-from-Grasp_Q320.jpg)
April 2025
·
54 Reads
Introduction: Additive manufacturing has emerged as a promising solution for improving the accessibility and affordability of upper limb prostheses. Despite the growing need, traditional prosthetic devices remain costly and often inaccessible, particularly in underserved regions. This review examines the current landscape of 3D-printed upper limb prostheses, focusing on their design, functionality, and cost-effectiveness. It aims to assess the potential of 3D-printing upper limb prostheses in addressing current accessibility barriers. Methods: A two-phase approach was used to analyze the literature on 3D-printed upper limb prostheses. The first phase involved a literature search using keywords related to 3D printing and upper limbs prostheses. The second phase included data collection from online platforms such as Enabling the Future, Thingiverse, and NIH 3D Print Exchange. Studies focusing on the design, fabrication, and clinical application of 3D-printed prostheses were included. The results were organized into categories based on design characteristics, kinematic features, and manufacturing specifications. Results: A total of 35 3D-printed upper limb prostheses were reviewed, with the majority being hand prostheses. Devices were categorized based on their range of motion, actuation mechanism, materials, cost, and assembly complexity. The e-NABLE open-source platform has played a significant role in the development and dissemination of these devices. Prostheses were classified into cost categories (low, moderate, and high), with 64% of models costing under USD 50. Most designs were rated as easy to moderate in terms of assembly, making them accessible for non-specialist users. Conclusions: Three-dimensional printing offers an effective, low-cost alternative to traditional prosthetic manufacturing. However, variability in design, a lack of standardized manufacturing protocols, and limited clinical validation remain challenges. Future efforts should focus on establishing standardized guidelines, improving design consistency, and validating the clinical effectiveness of 3D-printed prostheses to ensure their long-term viability as functional alternatives to traditional devices.