







































VOLUME 6, ISSUE 2 

 2023 
 

Articles in this special issue has been invited and reviewed by Dr. Silvia Ursula Raschke and Dr. Hossein Gholizadeh. 

 

D E S I G N I N G  T H E  F U T U R E :  3 D  P R I N T I N G ' S  

R E V O L U T I O N  I N  P R O S T H E T I C S  &  O R T H O T I C S  

S T A K E H O L D E R  P E R S P E C T I V E S   

PRINTING 

3D 

PUBLISHER: CANADIAN ONLINE PUBLICATION GROUP   

S P E C I A L  I S S U E  

CPOJ 

ISSN: 2561-987X 

https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/EDitorinchief


 

1 

Efstathiou K, McGarry A. 3D printed cosmetic covers for lower limb prosthetics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2023; Volume 6, Issue 2, No.8. 
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.42176 

 

 

STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES 

 

3D PRINTED COSMETIC COVERS FOR LOWER LIMB PROSTHETICS 

Efstathiou K1, McGarry A2* 

1 OrthoDesigns, Giannou Kranidioti, Limassol, Cyprus. 

2 Department of Biomedical engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.  

 

 

 

  

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Prosthetic users make use of lower limb prosthetics in their 

everyday life to complete tasks that they could do before 

their amputation. Even though a prosthesis may provide a 

wide variety of functional benefits, many patients choose to 

reject all these benefits over a poor cosmetic appearance.1 

Therefore, the patient's body image may be a crucial aspect 

to consider when prescribing a prosthesis. Poor cosmetic 

appearance may consist of factors such as bulky interface 

materials; abnormal appearance of the suspension system 

below clothes and/or lack of anatomical symmetry.2 

Conversely, a good cosmesis may assist prosthetic 

acceptance; promote functional recovery; positively affect 

outcome measures and improve self and social acceptance 

of the patient.2 Although cosmetic appearance constitutes a 

huge factor in the patients’ lives, the available literature 

regarding cosmetic covers is limited. In the current study, 

major companies who produce cosmetic covers on a 

commercial scale were identified.  

 

 

 

Furthermore, each company’s cover design was briefly 

outlined, and a list of criteria was developed. Moreover, all 

designs were compared in a pairwise fashion based on 

these criteria and a theoretical novel design was then 

presented utilising the highest performing criteria to create 

an improved design. 

Traditionally, cosmetic covers focused on achieving the 

best aesthetic appearance possible, mirroring the image of 

the patient’s sound leg. Through time, a fresh perspective 

has developed on cosmetic appearance where the 

traditional/realistic covers have evolved into a more creative 

product, transforming the concept of disability into a concept 

of super-ability, promoting the user’s personality.3 Studies 

have revealed that about 60% of prosthetic users were 

neutral or dissatisfied with traditional designs, resulting 

many companies to divert into new manufacture 

technologies.4 Companies are now able to produce custom 

made covers on a commercial scale, encouraging users 

towards personalised covers which truly reflect their 

personality and do not necessarily need to represent a 

natural look. 

There are many ways to produce a lower limb cosmetic 

cover. Most prosthetists historically used a Plastazote foam 

block, which was then shaped and matched to the patient's 

sound leg to provide a more cosmetic appearance of the 

prosthesis.2 Although foam covers have been an affordable 

 
OPEN  ACCESS 

ABSTRACT 

Cosmetic covers provide better aesthetic appearance and may facilitate increased acceptance of the 

prosthesis. Traditionally, cosmetic covers aimed to achieve an aesthetic and realistic appearance; 

through time, a fresh perspective has developed on cosmetic covers where traditional/realistic covers 

evolved into a custom-made product, which truly promotes the patient’s personality. The objectives of the 

study were to gather information from five well-known companies in the cosmetic cover industry (UNYQ, 

Limb-Art, Alleles, WillowWood and Aqua-Leg), analyse and compare their design elements using the 

Pugh matrix, and suggest a novel design using the best performing criteria of each design. The overall 

results of the Pugh matrix revealed the opportunity of a new design with improved design elements mainly 

in terms of “cover fit/aesthetics”, “ease of attachment” and “practicality”. The novel design had a vast 

difference in total score from the second-best design, revealing the improvement possibilities such cover 

design may have in the future. Although the study successfully presented a theoretical novel design, it 

was based on data found through literature and web resources, making the overall results of the study 

more objective rather than subjective. Future research is encouraged to be conducted based on a more 

subjective approach towards cosmetic covers. 

CITATION 

Efstathiou K, McGarry A. 3D 

printed cosmetic covers for lower 

limb prosthetics. Canadian 

Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 

2023; Volume 6, Issue 2, No.8. 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.4

2176 

KEYWORDS 

Cosmetic Cover, Aesthetic Covers, 

Lower Limb, Artificial Limb, 

Amputation, Prosthetics, Additive 

Manufacturing, 3D Printing 

* CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: 

Anthony McGarry, PhD 

Department of Biomedical engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 
UK. 

E-Mail: anthony.mcgarry@strath.ac.uk 

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0738-5906 

Journal Homepage: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/index 

Volume 6, Issue 2, Article No.8, 2023 

 

 

Special Issue 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.42176
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.42176
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.42176
mailto:anthony.mcgarry@strath.ac.uk
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0738-5906
https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/index


 

2 

Efstathiou K, McGarry A. 3D printed cosmetic covers for lower limb prosthetics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2023; Volume 6, Issue 2, No.8. 
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.42176 

CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL 

ISSN: 2561-987X 3D PRINTED COSMETIC COVERS FOR LOWER LIMB PROSTHETICS 

Efstathiou K, and McGarry A, 2023 (Special Issue) 

and lightweight option, they may be highly disadvantageous 

on the aspects of durability and customisation. 

Technological advancements have facilitated companies to 

move into injection moulding techniques, to produce more 

durable, detailed, and water-resistant silicone covers.5,6 

Recently, 3D printing technologies have been introduced in 

the industry, making cosmetic covers fully customisable, 

whilst affordable.  

Additive manufacturing, of which the most known form is 3D 

printing, combines a group of emerging and innovative 

techniques to produce covers based on digital models using 

a layer-by-layer accumulation approach.7 The most 

common techniques are Multi Jet Fusion (MJF) and 

Selective Laser Sintering (SLS); both are Powder Bed 

Fusion (PBF) based techniques that use Nylon 

powder/Polyamide to produce the covers. The main 

difference between these techniques is that SLS uses a 

CO2 laser as a heat source, where MJF utilises an array of 

infrared lamps as a heat source along with a fusing agent 

that absorbs infrared radiation energy. MJF also uses a 

water-based detailing agent to inhibit the powder's fusion 

near the part edges, which enhances the overall cover’s 

quality.8 SLS has generally been used more, as it was 

initially developed during the 1980s, where MJF is a more 

recent technique emerging in 2014. A recent study,8 having 

analysed and compared these two methods, concluded that 

MJF printed samples presented better printing quality and 

stronger bonding strength between layers; MJF samples 

also had higher tensile and flexural strength with a better 

surface finish compared to the SLS samples. Schematic 

illustration of the two PBF processes can be found in Cai et 

al., recent publlication.8 

Manufacture of cosmetic covers has been becoming more 

exciting and creative over recent years, as many companies 

utilised these production methods. Some of the most well-

known companies in the cosmetic cover industry are UNYQ, 

Limb-Art, Alleles, WillowWood and Aqua-Leg.  

The selection procedure aimed to include companies 

involved in all three types of manufacture methods; foam, 

silicone and 3D printed. Initially, many companies that 

produce foam covers were identified, but WillowWood was 

chosen amongst them as it provided adequate information 

about their covers. Furthermore, Ottobock company was 

the most popular amongst the production of silicone covers, 

but there was insufficient information about their covers 

which resulted in choosing the next available candidate, 

Aqua-Leg. The rest of the companies, UNYQ, Limb-Art and 

Alleles, were some of the few companies who provided 

custom made covers and were termed as appropriate for 

this study. The objectives of the current study were to gather 

information from these five well-known companies in the 

cosmetic cover industry, analyse and compare their design 

elements using the Pugh matrix, and suggest a novel design 

using the best performing criteria of each design. 

METHODOLOGY 

Following the analysis of the five different designs, a Pugh 

matrix was used to compare them with each other and 

produce a theoretical novel design. 

The Pugh matrix is a diagram that allows to make a pairwise 

comparison between several designs against a set of 

criteria and then decide which design meets best these 

criteria. It also allows a degree of qualitative optimisation of 

the designs through the generation of new designs. One of 

the most important aspects of a Pugh matrix is to correctly 

identify the criteria, as the robustness and validity of the 

outcome is fundamentally dependent on an appropriate set 

of criteria.9 Criteria selection was based upon factors 

considered important in evidence-based literature and from 

websites themselves. 

Cosmetic appearance and fit of the cover have been an 

essential factor for prosthetic users; therefore, the first and 

one of the most important criteria was “cover 

fit/aesthetics”, which appraised the cover's cosmetic 

appearance and fit on the prosthesis. Cosmetic appearance 

was evaluated more towards the design's artistic and 

creative side and not the realistic/natural look.  

As prosthetic users already have high expenses regarding 

the prosthesis, liners, etc., the cover's cost was an essential 

factor that a prosthetic user may consider before buying the 

cover.2 Consequently, the second criterion was 

“economical” and referred to the cover’s price.  

“Lightweight” has been set as the third criterion and 

appraised the weight of each cover. The Cover’s weight 

may be a crucial factor for some patients, as extra weight 

increase stresses between joint surfaces and skin.10 

The durability of the cover was considered as an important 

factor, especially for active walkers.4 The criterion of 

“durability” was about the cover’s robustness and strength 

under low/medium impacts. 

The next very important criterion was “maintenance/ 

repair” which referred to the maintenance, if any was 

required; the repairability of the cover, if it gets damaged; 

and if any warranty was available with the cover. Prosthetic 

users have considered maintenance, repairability and 

warranty as an important aspect of a cosmetic cover.4 

Moreover, the next two criteria were “ease of attachment” 

and “practicality”. Ease of attachment was simply referring 

to the attachment method and how easy it is to don and doff 

the cosmetic cover, which is very important from the user’s 

perspective. Practicality was about when alignment 

changes were applied on the prosthesis and if the cover was 

still usable and cosmetically acceptable after these 

changes. This criterion was considered as significant, as the 

overall cosmetic appearance may be affected due to the low 

practicality of a cover. 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.42176


 

3 

Efstathiou K, McGarry A. 3D printed cosmetic covers for lower limb prosthetics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2023; Volume 6, Issue 2, No.8. 
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.42176 

CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL 

ISSN: 2561-987X 3D PRINTED COSMETIC COVERS FOR LOWER LIMB PROSTHETICS 

Efstathiou K, and McGarry A, 2023 (Special Issue) 

The next criterion was “customisation” and referred to the 

customisation options available for each design. A variety of 

customisation options allowed users to choose a cover 

which truly reflects their personality. Therefore 

"customisation" was an important criterion to include.  

The last five criteria were “ease of cleanliness”, 

“insurance”, “protection”, “clear website instructions” 

and “reliability”. Ease of cleanliness was about how easy 

it is to clean the cover for the user.4 Insurance evaluated if 

the cost of the cover will get reimbursed or not, by an 

insurance company. This criterion was directly related and 

was equally important to the “economical” criterion, as if the 

cover was overpriced, then the chances for compensation 

by the insurance company were low. Next, the criterion of 

“protection” assessed the level of protection a cover 

provided to the expensive prosthetic components, which 

was an important factor to consider. Second to last, the 

criterion “clear website instructions”, evaluated how clear 

were the website instructions given by the company to the 

user and prosthetist, about the use and maintenance of their 

cosmetic cover. Lastly, the criterion of “reliability” addressed 

whether the company or prosthetist could deliver a cosmetic 

cover that seamlessly fits the user every time. 

Once an appropriate set of criteria have been identified, the 

WillowWood foam cover was selected as the baseline, 

where all criteria for this design were marked with the letter 

“S”. WillowWood was the most appropriate candidate to be 

set as the baseline since this type of design was the most 

well-known amongst the profession of Prosthetics. Next, all 

other candidate designs were compared in a pairwise 

fashion against the baseline for each of the criteria and 

marked accordingly following the marking rational specified 

in Table 1.9 

Table 1: Marking rational for a Pugh matrix. The overall evaluation 

was made by adding the “+” and “-” for each design concept. 

BASELINE CANDIDATE DESIGN SYMBOL USED 

S BETTER + 

S MUCH BETTER ++ 

S WORSE - 

S MUCH WORSE -- 

S EQUAL S 

 

To help discriminate the options even more, the criteria 

have been also weighted. Although there was no change in 

the rankings after applying the weightings, it was useful in 

deciding which design elements were the best to include in 

the new design. 

RESULTS 

After the evaluation of the five designs, WillowWood was 

placed last (Table 2). Although the total score was the 

lowest amongst the other covers, it was equal or better at 

the criteria of “economical”; “lightweight” and “insurance”; 

making it the most suitable option for the buyer who requires 

a low-cost cover with relatively aesthetic appearance. The 

Alleles design outperformed the rest of the designs in the 

following criteria: “lightweight”; “maintenance/repair”; 

“practicality” and “clear website instructions”. Covers 

produced by Alleles were the most lightweight starting from 

150g, where other covers started from 250g or more 

(250g>x>700g). The WillowWood foam covers weighted 

approximately the same as the Alleles design but scored 

negatively and lowest in most of the other criteria and 

therefore is considered the least appropriate. Alleles also 

provided the ability to prosthetists to adjust or modify the 

shape of the cover after delivery, with the use of a heat gun. 

This option may be very useful in case of any minor 

damages to the cover or when the prosthetist needs to 

make major alignment changes to the prosthesis which may 

affect the cosmetic appearance of the cover. It also provided 

the most straightforward website instructions for both user 

and prosthetist on how to fit and take care of the cover after 

delivery. 

Table 2: Pugh matrix evaluation.  

  DESIGN CONCEPTS 

EVALUATION 
CRITERIA 

W
E

IG
H

T
IN

G
S

 O
F

 C
R

IT
E

R
IA

 

W
IL

L
O

W
W

O
O

D
 F

O
A

M
 

C
O

V
E

R
 

A
Q

U
A

-L
E

G
 

U
N

Y
Q

 

L
IM

B
-A

R
T

  

A
L

L
E

L
E

S
 

N
O

V
E

L
 D

E
S

IG
N

 

COVER 
FIT/AESTHETICS 

5 S ++ ++ + + ++ 

ECONOMICAL 5 S -- -- - -- -- 

LIGHTWEIGHT 2 S -- -- - S S 

DURABILITY 4 S + ++ ++ ++ ++ 

MAINTENANCE/REPAIR 3 S + + + ++ ++ 

EASE OF 
ATTACHMENT 

2 S S ++ + + ++ 

PRACTICALITY 3 S S + + ++ ++ 

CUSTOMISATION 4 S + ++ ++ ++ ++ 

EASE OF CLEANINESS 3 S ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 

INSURANCE 3 S -- - S - - 

PROTECTION 2 S + ++ ++ ++ ++ 

CLEAR WEBSITE 
INSTRUCTIONS 

3 S - S - + + 

RELIABILITY 4 S ++ ++ S + ++ 

TOTAL +   0 10 16 12 16 19 

TOTAL -   0 7 5 3 3 3 

TOTAL SCORE   0 3 11 9 13 16 

WEIGHTED TOTAL +    0 37 54 39 52 63 

WEIGHTED TOTAL -   0 23 17 10 13 13 

WEIGHTED SCORE   0 14 37 29 39 50 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.42176


 

4 

Efstathiou K, McGarry A. 3D printed cosmetic covers for lower limb prosthetics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2023; Volume 6, Issue 2, No.8. 
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.42176 

CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL 

ISSN: 2561-987X 3D PRINTED COSMETIC COVERS FOR LOWER LIMB PROSTHETICS 

Efstathiou K, and McGarry A, 2023 (Special Issue) 

DISCUSSION  

The three main manufacture methods and five well-known 

companies that produce commercially cosmetic covers 

were identified. After a thorough description of each 

company’s cosmetic cover, a pairwise comparison was 

conducted using a Pugh matrix based on the criteria defined 

by the researcher. The results of the Pugh matrix let to 

consider a novel design utilising the best performing criteria 

from the other candidate designs. The new design concept 

revealed the opportunity of an improved design by pointing 

out some of the key design elements that could be included 

in a new design. In addition, the new design scored a much 

higher total score when compared to the second-best 

design (Alleles), hence identifying once again the 

improvement possibilities such cover design may have in 

the future.  

Novel design 

Following the application of the weightings (Table 2), the 

two leading design concepts, UNYQ and Alleles, scored 

almost the same. Although both designs had almost an 

identical total score, the two designs outperformed each 

other in different design elements, which let to consider 

creating a new and superior design. 

Combining the most appropriate design elements together 

in a novel design, resulted to a higher total score (50 points) 

when compared to all the other design concepts (Table 2). 

This is a theoretical novel design but considering that these 

companies already produced and tested their covers, it can 

be assumed that the production of such design is feasible. 

The novel design was described in the next section while 

following a logical order from Table 2.  

Starting with the criterion of “cover fit/aesthetics”; 3D 

scanning technology should be used to capture the true 

image of the patient’s prosthesis and sound leg to establish 

a perfect fit for the cover. The cost of the cover should be 

as affordable as possible, but possibly a high price tag is 

inevitable as the most advanced materials and scanning 

techniques are meant to be used in the production of such 

design. An “attractive” price range for the novel design 

would be between $500 and $1000, although this is 

influenced by many factors during the production phase. 

Reducing the cost of the cover will increase the possibilities 

for the insurance companies to reimburse the cover and 

may attract more users to buy and try the cover. 

Unfortunately, no previous studies nor web resources have 

stated an absolute range of prices an insurance company 

would reimburse. Ideally the cover should be lightweight 

and still durable enough to resist impacts and protect the 

prosthetic componentry, which can be achieved using the 

MJF 3D printing method and high-grade nylon powder as 

the material of the cover. In cases of any major damages to 

the cover, a replacement policy should be provided to the 

users. Moreover, one of the attachment methods should be 

with magnets as this may be the fastest way to don and doff 

the cover. For the criterion of “practicality”, the cover should 

be able to be “fine-tuned” to any alignment changes made 

on the prosthesis which may affect the overall shape; this 

may be achieved with the use of a heat gun, or with a 

“flexible” cover design consisting of different moving parts 

or auxetic structures allowing the cover to adjust in any 

alignment and volume changes. The cover’s design and 

colours should be fully customisable to match the patient’s 

needs. 

Pugh matrix evaluation  

To better appreciate the rationale behind the score of each 

design concept, the first three rows of Table 2 have been 

briefly explained. 

Beginning with the first row which refers to the criterion of 

“cover fit/aesthetics”. The WillowWood foam cover, which 

was set as the baseline, can be described as un-cosmetic 

around the knee joint, and can change shape over time; in 

addition, foam covers may not always represent a true 

mirrored image of the sound leg. Based on the performance 

of the baseline, UNYQ and Aqua-Leg scored “++”, as their 

covers perfectly fit on the prosthesis due to the 3D scanning 

technology used, where the margin of error is minimal. 

Lastly, Limb-Art and Alleles scored “+”, as they both use 

manual measuring procedures to manufacture their covers, 

but they still produce more aesthetic covers than the 

baseline. 

Moving on to the second and third rows, which refer to the 

criteria of “economical” and “lightweight”. The WillowWood 

foam cover cost less than $100 and weighs around 150g.11 

For the “economical” criterion, all other candidates scored 

worse than the baseline; for instance: Limb-Art scored “-” 

because their cheaper cover starts from $27012 and UNYQ 

scored “--” because their cheaper cover starts from $495.13 

For the “lightweight” criterion, all the covers, except Alleles, 

scored worse than the baseline; for instance: UNYQ scored 

“--” because their lighter cover weighs 300g,14 which was 

heavier than the baseline; thus, the negative score. The 

most lightweight Alleles cover weighs 150g,15 which was 

approximately the same as the baseline; therefore, the letter 

“S” was used. 

Study limitations 

The information for each company's cosmetic cover were 

mainly gathered from their websites which may have 

influenced the data's reliability as it may be biased in some 

sections; this approach was used due to lack of available 

published literature about each cover. 

Whilst the criteria set on this study were thought to be 

inclusive of the main factors which should be considered in 

the design of a cosmetic cover, they are not exhaustive. It 

is feasible that alternative criteria could be selected and 

prioritised differently by different researchers. 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.42176


 

5 

Efstathiou K, McGarry A. 3D printed cosmetic covers for lower limb prosthetics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2023; Volume 6, Issue 2, No.8. 
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.42176 

CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL 

ISSN: 2561-987X 3D PRINTED COSMETIC COVERS FOR LOWER LIMB PROSTHETICS 

Efstathiou K, and McGarry A, 2023 (Special Issue) 

Future research  

The criteria and results of the Pugh matrix were based on 

information found through available literature and websites, 

making the overall approach of this study to be more 

towards the objective side rather than subjective. A future 

study could have end-user groups evaluate the existing list 

of criteria and even expand the list further, on topics such 

as reimbursement. Such study may provide sufficient 

subjective feedback from the users themselves and offer 

reliable evidence about the different cosmetic options, thus 

allowing higher quality evidence-based studies to take place 

in the future. 

CONCLUSION 

Although a theoretical novel design was successfully 

presented through the comparison of the different designs, 

the data of the study were obtained from the literature and 

websites of these companies, making the results of the 

study to be more towards the objective side rather than 

subjective. Researchers are encouraged to conduct more 

evidence-based studies around cosmetic covers which are 

oriented more towards the user’s point of view thus allowing 

future research to be more subjective rather than objective. 

CALL TO ACTION 

As we navigate through the intricacies of cosmetic covers, 

the findings from our study emphasize the need for 

continued exploration and innovation. Now, we call upon 

researchers, designers, and professionals in the prosthetic 

industry to seize this opportunity for advancement. Our 

research has identified key areas where novel designs can 

make a substantial impact. By incorporating the best-

performing criteria from leading companies like UNYQ,14 

Limb-Art,15 Alleles,16 WillowWood,17 and Aqua-Leg,18 we 

envision a future where prosthetic cosmetic covers not only 

enhance appearance but also improve functionality and 

user experience. 

This study lays the groundwork for a more subjective 

approach to future research. We encourage the prosthetic 

community to delve deeper into the lived experiences and 

preferences of prosthetic users. By combining quantitative 

data with qualitative insights, we can create cosmetic 

covers that not only meet technical standards but also 

resonate with the diverse and unique identities of 

individuals. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

None. 

DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS 

Dr. Anthony McGarry has no conflict of interest in the preparation 

of this manuscript. Kyriakos Efstathiou is co-founder of 

OrthoDesigns.  

 

AUTHORS CONTRIBUTION 

Both authors contributed equally to the research and the writing of 

this manuscript. 

SOURCES OF SUPPORT 

None. 

REFERENCES 

1.Murray CD. Being like everybody else: The personal meanings of 

being a prosthesis user. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(7):573–81. 

DOI:10.1080/09638280802240290 

2.Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Knight M, Olk-Szost A, Boyd M, Miro 

RM. Delivery of cosmetic covers to persons with transtibial and 

transfemoral amputations in an outpatient prosthetic practice. 

Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016;40(3):343–9. DOI:10.1177/ 

0309364614564024 

3.Fukuda S, editor. Emotional Engineering, Vol. 4. Springer Nature; 

2016; DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-29433-9  

4.Cairns N, Murray K, Corney J, McFadyen A. Satisfaction with 

cosmesis and priorities for cosmesis design reported by lower limb 

amputees in the United Kingdom. Prosthet Orthot Int. 

2014;38(6):467–73. DOI:10.1177/0309364613512149 

5.Ottobock US shop [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jan 21]. Available from: 

https://www.ottobockus.com/products/custom-silicone-leg-cover/ 

6.Ottobock.nl. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jan 21]. Available at: 

https://www.ottobock.nl/media/catalogus/service-

fabrication_customized-solutions_en.pdf 

7.Ngo TD, Kashani A, Imbalzano G, Nguyen KTQ, Hui D. Additive 

manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials, methods, 

applications and challenges. Compos B Eng. 2018;143:172–96. 

DOI:10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012  

8.Cai C, Tey WS, Chen J, Zhu W, Liu X, Liu T, et al. Comparative 

study on 3D printing of Polyamide 12 by selective laser sintering 

and multi jet fusion. J Mater Process Technol. 2021;288:116882. 

DOI:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2020.116882 

9.Burge S. The systems engineering tool box [Internet].  

Burgehugheswalsh.co.uk, [cited 2021 Jan 27]. Available from: 

https://www.burgehugheswalsh.co.uk/uploaded/1/documents/pug

h-matrix-v1.1.pdf 

10.Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ. The implications of amputees being 

overweight [Internet]. InMotion;[cited 2021 Jan 27]. Available from: 

http://opmarketing.com/storage/Research%20EncyclOPedia/Healt

h/in%20Motion%202008%20amps%20overweight.pdf 

11.BK cosmetic foam cover for prosthetic limbs [Internet]. [cited 

2021 Feb 4]. Available from: https://wonderfureha.en.made-in-

china.com/product/wyYmFajvSZhG/China-Bk-Cosmetic-Foam-

Cover-for-Prosthetic-Limbs.html 

12.Saunders S. Limb-art: Using HP technology to create stylish 3D 

printed prosthetic leg covers [Internet].  3dprint.com: The Voice of 

3D printing/additive manufacturing; 2021; [cited 2021 Jan 24]. 

Available from: https://3dprint.com/251688/limb-art-hp-create-3d-

printed-prosthetic-leg-covers/ 

 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.42176
https://www.ottobockus.com/products/custom-silicone-leg-cover/
https://www.ottobock.nl/media/catalogus/service-fabrication_customized-solutions_en.pdf
https://www.ottobock.nl/media/catalogus/service-fabrication_customized-solutions_en.pdf
https://www.burgehugheswalsh.co.uk/uploaded/1/documents/pugh-matrix-v1.1.pdf
https://www.burgehugheswalsh.co.uk/uploaded/1/documents/pugh-matrix-v1.1.pdf
http://opmarketing.com/storage/Research%20EncyclOPedia/Health/in%20Motion%202008%20amps%20overweight.pdf
http://opmarketing.com/storage/Research%20EncyclOPedia/Health/in%20Motion%202008%20amps%20overweight.pdf
https://wonderfureha.en.made-in-china.com/product/wyYmFajvSZhG/China-Bk-Cosmetic-Foam-Cover-for-Prosthetic-Limbs.html
https://wonderfureha.en.made-in-china.com/product/wyYmFajvSZhG/China-Bk-Cosmetic-Foam-Cover-for-Prosthetic-Limbs.html
https://wonderfureha.en.made-in-china.com/product/wyYmFajvSZhG/China-Bk-Cosmetic-Foam-Cover-for-Prosthetic-Limbs.html
https://3dprint.com/251688/limb-art-hp-create-3d-printed-prosthetic-leg-covers/
https://3dprint.com/251688/limb-art-hp-create-3d-printed-prosthetic-leg-covers/


 

6 

Efstathiou K, McGarry A. 3D printed cosmetic covers for lower limb prosthetics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2023; Volume 6, Issue 2, No.8. 
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.42176 

CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL 

ISSN: 2561-987X 3D PRINTED COSMETIC COVERS FOR LOWER LIMB PROSTHETICS 

Efstathiou K, and McGarry A, 2023 (Special Issue) 

13.UNYQ raises $1M, taking pre-orders for 3D printed below-knee 

fairings [Internet]. www.3ders.org; [cited 2021 Jan 25]. Available 

from: https://www.3ders.org/articles/20140628-unyq-raises-taking-

pre-orders-for-3d-printed-below-knee-fairings.html 

14.Invent. Like no other [Internet].  UNYQ; [cited 2021 Jan 22]. 

Available from: https://unyq.com/ 

15.ALLELES, FAQ [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jan 25]. Available from: 

https://alleles.ca/faq/ 

16.Limb-Art Home page [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jan 22]. Available 

from: https://limb-art.com/about-limb-art/ 

17.Transfemoral foam covers [Internet]. WillowWood. [cited 2021 

Jan 22]. Available from: https://willowwood.com/products-

services/modular-components/cosmetic-foam/transfemoral-foam-

covers/ 

18.Aqualeg Home page [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jan 22]. Available 

from: https://www.aqualeg.com/en 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUTHORS SCIENTIFIC BIOGRAPHY 

Kyriakos Efstathiou, born on June 28, 

1999, in Cyprus, discovered the field of 

Prosthetics and Orthotics (P&O) during a 

chance meeting with the owner of a local 

P&O clinic. Motivated by this encounter, 

he commenced his studies at the 

University of Strathclyde in 2018, 

aspiring to become a Certified 

Prosthetist and Orthotist. During his 

academic journey, Kyriakos encountered the transformative 

applications of 3D printing in the P&O field. This revelation ignited 

his mission to make 3D printing more affordable and accessible to 

clinics. Upon completing his studies and work placement, Kyriakos 

returned to Cyprus and co-founded OrthoDesigns alongside 

Savvas Savva, a P&O Technician. Since then, he has been working 

as a clinician, contributing locally, while managing OrthoDesigns 

and steering its expansion both nationally and internationally. 

Dr Anthony McGarry is a Senior 

Teaching Fellow, Health Care 

Professionals Council registered 

prosthetist/orthotist, Department of 

Biomedical Engineering, University of 

Strathclyde. He is responsible for 

undergraduate /postgraduate tuition in 

lower limb prosthetics. Interests include: 

clinical management; socket design, 

shape capture methods and residual limb interface pressures. He 

obtained a PhD in Evaluation of prosthetic shape capture systems 

in the University of Strathclyde in 2009. Current research 

focus/publication is in evaluating prosthetic shape capture methods 

and Computer-Aided-Design. For research activity please visit: 

https://pureportal.strath.ac.uk/en/persons/anthony-mcgarry 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.42176
https://www.3ders.org/articles/20140628-unyq-raises-taking-pre-orders-for-3d-printed-below-knee-fairings.html
https://www.3ders.org/articles/20140628-unyq-raises-taking-pre-orders-for-3d-printed-below-knee-fairings.html
https://unyq.com/
https://alleles.ca/faq/
https://limb-art.com/about-limb-art/
https://willowwood.com/products-services/modular-components/cosmetic-foam/transfemoral-foam-covers/
https://willowwood.com/products-services/modular-components/cosmetic-foam/transfemoral-foam-covers/
https://willowwood.com/products-services/modular-components/cosmetic-foam/transfemoral-foam-covers/
https://www.aqualeg.com/en
https://pureportal.strath.ac.uk/en/persons/anthony-mcgarry

