Abstract
Prosthetic limbs deliver major quality of life and socioeconomic benefits for people with amputation, particularly in low-resource settings. The value of administrative data analysis to enable sustainable health care improvement is established, but there has been limited research into the failure, repair, and replacement of prosthetic limbs. Survivorship data is sparse and highly variable, and rarely addresses differences between demographic groups.
Therefore, we investigated the distribution of time between device delivery, repair and replacement for a Cambodian cohort, considering the influence of a range of service delivery, user demographic and health characteristics. We conducted Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and a Cox model to compare repair and replacement likelihood between groups.
The study explored 14,822 device deliveries to 6,986 clients, with median 3 devices/person (interdecile range IDR 1–9), and 22,205 repairs, median 1 repair/device (IDR 0–4). The median device survival before repair was 237 days (IDR 38–854), and replacement was 727 days (IDR 208–2154). Devices used by people in more active occupations were repaired earlier, and devices were replaced earlier when used by children, replaced later for upper- than lower-limb devices, and replaced earlier for volume change than for wear and tear. Several less intuitive trends were revealed such as different preferences or capacities between clinics for device repair vs. replacement, and earlier device repair and replacement for women than men.
Prosthetic limb repair and replacement is influenced both by the device’s durability and the user’s access to well-resourced physical rehabilitation services. A worn-out device may indicate poor quality, or the opposite: that it fitted well and enabled great mobility. However, such analysis may enable us to identify groups who are less well-served by current devices or rehabilitation models, and contribute to cost effectiveness analysis of current services. Furthermore, the findings represent benchmark data against which engineers could measure new technologies, to ensure that innovation justifies its inherent risk by offering a genuine improvement which balances functionality, cost, and durability.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
We gratefully acknowledge support from the Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Government as part of the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) scheme (grant EP/R014213/1), The Alan Turing Institute (grant EP/N510129/1), and the Royal Academy of Engineering (RF/130). Sponsors had no role in the study. Besides this funding the authors have no conflict of interest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Institutional Review Board of University of Southampton gave ethical approval for this work National ethics committee of Cambodia gave ethical approval for this work. Both waived the requirement for individual consent, as this is a secondary data analysis study of anonymised electronic health records.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author's institution