Cohoes High senior finds 3D printing can speed lower‑limb prosthetic production, but insurance delays remain a barrier

Jackson Felt, a senior in Cohoes High School’s multi‑year science research program, presented a study comparing 3D‑printed lower‑limb prosthetic fabrication to traditional plaster methods and reported that most certified prosthetists he surveyed use 3D printing and view it as more efficient.

Felt collected data from certified prosthetists verified through the American Board for Certification in Prosthetics and Orthotics using a Google form; respondents reported which fabrication processes they use and how long patients wait from consult to fit. He said "76.5 percent of respondents utilized only 3D printing to manufacture prosthetic limbs" and that "93.3% of respondents said that 3D printing was more efficient."

The nut graf: Felt’s sample suggests 3D printing can shorten fabrication time and reduce labor costs, but he cautioned that insurance approval timelines and limited adoption slow overall patient turnaround.

Felt explained standard plaster production involves wrapping a residual limb in plaster or fiberglass, creating a positive mold that can require three to five days to set before socket fabrication and final fitting. By contrast, he described digital workflows—iPhone LiDAR scanning, digital rectification (slicer) software and large‑format 3D printers—that allow rapid prototyping and customization. He said large printers used in the study print sizes “up to 19 inches by 13 inches by 25 inches” and speeds “up to 400 millimeters per second.”

On measured turnaround, the study reported a median of 24.5 days for 3D‑printed sockets (standard deviation 27.1) versus 36 days for plaster (standard deviation 17.1); Felt noted the paired t‑test returned a p value of 0.242, which in his words corresponds to a roughly 75.8% confidence interval and does not meet conventional thresholds for statistical significance.

Felt identified several practical time savings from 3D workflows: digital transferability, automation of socket fabrication and the ability for clinicians to perform other tasks while parts print. He also listed study limitations, notably small sample size, heterogeneous adoption of the technology and insurance approval delays that can dominate overall wait times.

Felt concluded that his results “support the hypothesis that 3D printing is more efficient than plaster for prosthetic device manufacturing,” but that further research—especially into insurer timelines and broader clinical outcomes—is needed before concluding the technology uniformly shortens patient wait times.

Speakers present during the presentation included Ethan Beck, who introduced Felt, and Michael Posco, the teacher who oversees the research program. Felt took audience questions after his talk; organizers encouraged attendees to view posters and speak directly with students about methods and data.