LiDAR vs. Structured-Light 3D Scanners in Orthotics & Prosthetics: What Clinicians Need to Know

Digital capture has become one of the most transformative steps in the O&P workflow. Whether designing a transtibial socket, capturing a diabetic foot for custom insoles, or scanning a scoliosis brace, the accuracy and reliability of the chosen 3D scanner strongly influence downstream clinical outcomes.

Among the most common technologies in O&P today are:

• LiDAR-based 3D scanners (often integrated in mobile devices like iPads, and some handheld systems)

• Structured-light 3D scanners (such as Shining 3D’s EinScan line, Medit, TechMed 3D, Elinvision iQube, etc.)

Although both generate 3D geometry, their performance, resolution, behaviour with skin/clothing, and workflow suitability differ greatly. Understanding these differences helps clinicians choose the right tool for each patient scenario.

1. How Each Technology Works

LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging)

LiDAR projects laser pulses and measures the time it takes for the light to return (time-of-flight).
It excels at capturing general geometry quickly but with limited resolution.

Characteristics:

• Captures depth using laser distance measurement

• Less sensitive to ambient light

• Lower geometric resolution than structured light

• Often built into consumer devices like iPhones/iPads

• Best for large, simple shapes

Structured Light

Structured-light scanners project patterned light onto the body, and cameras detect how the pattern deforms.
This enables very high-resolution surface reconstruction.

Characteristics:

• Uses projected LED/infrared patterns

• Very high point density and accuracy

• Sensitive to reflective/dark surfaces

• Requires stable lighting environment

• Commonly used in medical scanning systems and CAD/CAM orthotics

2. Accuracy, Resolution & Repeatability

🔍 Why it matters:
For socket design or diabetic plantar surfaces, millimetric precision influences comfort, loading, and long-term skin integrity. Structured light preserves these critical contours better.

3. Behaviour on Human Skin & Complex Anatomy

LiDAR

• Can struggle on smooth skin due to low texture

• Geometry may appear “soft” or rounded

• Poor at capturing fine edges like malleoli, navicular drop, patellar tendon regions

• Great for capturing shape under compression socks/plaster bandages

Structured Light

• Excellent at picking up small depressions, prominences, trimlines

• Highly accurate for bony anatomical landmarks

• Sensitive to movement — patient must stay still

• May struggle with very dark skin, tattoos, shiny lotions, or wet surfaces unless properly calibrated

📌 In prosthetics, structured light is superior for definitive socket design, while LiDAR may suffice for pre-alignment, volume monitoring, or rapid shape capture.

4. Speed & Clinical Workflow

➡️ LiDAR wins in convenience, especially for rural/mobile clinics.
➡️ Structured light wins in professional fabrication workflows, especially scanning for CROs, BK sockets, AFOs, and insoles.

5. Use Cases in Orthotics

Foot Orthotics

• LiDAR: Useful for foam-box scans or general arch profile; lacks sole details for high-precision insole milling.

• Structured Light: Industry standard for plantar pressure-sensitive areas, heel cup geometry, metatarsal relief zones.

AFO/KAFO

• LiDAR: Good for gross shape but weak at trimline fidelity.

• Structured Light: Captures contours around malleoli, navicular, tibial crest—critical for comfort.

Cranial Remoulding Orthoses

• Structured light dominates; sub-mm accuracy required.

6. Use Cases in Prosthetics

Transtibial Sockets

• LiDAR: Acceptable for volume tracking, not precise enough for definitive socket design.

• Structured Light: Captures bony anatomy, patellar tendon, fibular head, popliteal region with clinical fidelity.

Transfemoral Sockets

• LiDAR may struggle with smooth tissue; noise increases with distance.

• Structured light reliably captures adductor longus channel, IT band contour, ischial region.

Upper Limb

• Structured light preferred due to need for precision and repeatability.

7. Cost & Accessibility

LiDAR is cost-effective and excellent for entry-level digitisation.
Structured-light is a capital investment but supports premium clinical outcomes.

8. Summary: Which Should Clinics Choose?

Choose LiDAR if you need:

• A fast, portable, affordable option

• Quick volume monitoring

• Rural or home-based scanning

• Basic shapes for non-weight-bearing casts

• Patient education or rough measurements

Choose Structured Light if you need:

• Precision for socket design

• Complex O&P shapes with high detail

• Consistent repeatability for CAD/CAM

• AFO, KAFO, FO, TF/TB sockets, cranial work

• High-quality meshes for 3D printing or CNC milling

Conclusion

Both LiDAR and structured-light scanners play important roles in today’s O&P clinics.
LiDAR brings accessibility, speed, and low cost — ideal for screening, volume checks, and general shape capture.
Structured light brings clinical precision — essential for high-performance orthotic and prosthetic device fabrication.

For clinics pursuing digital transformation, a hybrid model is emerging:

• LiDAR for intake, monitoring, and mobile workflows

• Structured light for fabrication and definitive design

This combination supports Vision 2030-style modernization where digital accuracy and large-scale access must coexist.

Hinterlassen Sie einen Kommentar

Hinterlassen Sie einen Kommentar

Name*

E-Mail*

Kommentar*

Senden

• Weitergeben:
• WhatsApp
• Facebook
• X
• Pinterest
• Messenger
• E-Mail

---