Efficacy of rehabilitation after provision of ICRC lower limb prostheses in low-income and middle-income countries: A quantitative assessment from Myanmar.
Stephney Weerasinghe, Alejandra Aranceta-Garza, Laura Murray
PMID 37870366WHAT IT FOUND
In 35 Myanmar amputees using basic ICRC prostheses, higher physical mobility scores correlated with better quality of life.
Transtibial users achieved higher mobility than transfemoral users. Social engagement and inclusion were strongly linked to perceived well-being.
Key findings
01Higher Amputee Mobility Predictor scores were associated with better perceived quality of life, physical health, and social activity.
02Transtibial amputees achieved significantly higher mobility scores than transfemoral amputees.
03Perceptions of social engagement and inclusion were strongly correlated with overall quality of life.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size was very small (35 participants) and non-random, leading to significant sampling error. The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and political unrest in Myanmar, which restricted participant recruitment to those within a specific travel zone. There was a lack of baseline data or general population comparison for quality of life scores. The sample was heavily skewed toward male and transtibial amputees, limiting the generalizability of findings to female and transfemoral populations. The cross-sectional design prevents establishing causality between mobility improvements and quality of life gains.
Declared interests
One author is an employee of Exceed Worldwide, an organization that provided foreign funding for the facility where the study was conducted.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that providing ICRC prostheses alone guarantees improved quality of life or mobility for all amputees. The study is observational with a small, non-random sample, and it did not compare outcomes to a control group or pre-provision baseline. Furthermore, transfemoral users experienced lower mobility scores and specific disability perceptions that were not fully explained by the device components alone.