Pilot study demonstrates comparable image quality using a new wrist immobilization device in radiology, suggesting clinical potential.
Background/Objectives: Distal radius and carpal fractures are common injuries in emergency radiology, where accurate lateral wrist positioning is essential for diagnostic image quality. Maintaining a true lateral position can be challenging, often requiring manual support and increasing occupational radiation exposure. This pilot phantom study aimed to design, fabricate, and evaluate a novel 3D-printed wrist immobilization device and compare its performance with adhesive tape and sandbag stabilization. Methods: A wrist immobilization device was designed using computer-aided design software and fabricated by fused deposition modeling with polylactic acid. A wrist phantom was imaged using three stabilization techniques: the 3D-printed device, adhesive tape, and sandbag support. Image quality was independently assessed by two blinded observers using an eight-point scoring system. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Positioning time was recorded, and radiopacity was assessed using pixel intensity measurements within predefined regions of interest. Results: No significant differences in image quality were observed among the three stabilization techniques (p = 0.263). Inter-rater reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.877). Positioning time differed significantly among techniques (p = 0.036), with sandbag stabilization requiring the shortest time. Radiopacity analysis demonstrated minimal attenuation (8.6–20.8%) in regions adjacent to the anatomical area of interest, while higher attenuation was limited to non-diagnostic regions. Conclusions: The 3D-printed wrist immobilization device produced image quality comparable to conventional stabilization methods with minimal radiographic interference. These findings support its feasibility as a low-cost positioning aid and warrant further evaluation in larger clinical studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thonapan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: