This investigation compares mechanical performance of solid and perforated prosthetic designs for dogs, suggesting that the perforated model offers better flexibility and cost-efficiency.
This study investigates the mechanical performance of two prosthetic forelimb designs for dogs—one with a solid structure and the other with a perforated structure—using Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Both models were analyzed under static loading conditions representing approximately 60% of a dog’s body weight, the typical load borne by the forelimbs. The prosthetics were modeled with ABS plastic, a widely used 3D printing material, and evaluated for Von Mises stress, total deformation, elastic strain, and factor of safety. The analysis showed that both models remained within the elastic limit of the material, indicating that no permanent deformation would occur under the applied loads. The Solid Model demonstrated a significantly higher factor of safety (14) and lower deformation, confirming its structural strength but also highlighting excessive rigidity, increased material use, and higher cost. In contrast, the Perforated Model exhibited slightly higher localized stresses and a lower factor of safety (3.01), yet it still met essential safety requirements while providing greater compliance, flexibility, and material efficiency. These attributes are desirable for comfort, adaptability, and practicality in veterinary applications. Although its long-term durability requires further evaluation, the Perforated Model strikes a more effective balance between safety, comfort, and sustainability. Based on these findings, the perforated design is considered the more suitable option for canine prosthetic development. Future work will extend the analysis to dynamic loading scenarios, such as walking and running, to better simulate real-world performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarpong et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: