## 3 Results  
Twenty-nine children (19 boys, 66%, age 1-12 years) with unilateral upper limb agenesis or amputation were enrolled for the purpose of this study. Among them, 23 (79%) showed a forearm/wrist amputation and 6 (21%) a campus/finger amputation. At the first assessment, seven (24%) children already had a prosthesis (five had an aesthetic prosthesis, and two had a myoelectric prosthesis), while the other 22 (76%) had never worn an upper limb prosthesis. Five of the twenty-two (23%) children without a prosthesis were offered and given an aesthetic prosthesis; one of these children was then switched from an aesthetic prosthesis to a myoelectric prosthesis. Thus, a total of twelve children were fitted with prostheses; nine (75%) received aesthetic prostheses, while three (25%) were myoelectric devices. All the young patients carried on the entire protocol. The entire population agreed to be re-evaluated without a prosthesis, and the 12 children with prostheses were additionally evaluated while wearing the device. The UBET scale was administered to all children by dividing them into age groups (2-4 years, 5-7 years, 8-10 years, and 11-21 years) and taking into account its two components: Task completion and Method of use. Tables 2 and 3 show the efficiency of completion of each UBET scale task, respectively, without and with a prosthesis on. Most of the children performed and completed the various tasks with little or no difficulty, whether the tasks were performed with or without a prosthesis; none of the participants failed in completing the tasks. A difference between the two conditions emerged when comparing the overall sum of mean results (25 \(\pm\) 7.096 without prosthesis--23.67 \(\pm\) 6.050 with prosthesis). UBET Method scale results are reported in Table 4 (without prosthesis) and Table 5 (with prosthesis) as percentages of used parts. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**UBET-Task Completion: Evaluation without Prosthesis**} \\ \hline  & **N** & **Mean** & **Std. Deviation** \\ \hline Task 1 & 29 & 3.10 & 0.900 \\ \hline Task 2 & 29 & 3.03 & 1.476 \\ \hline Task 3 & 29 & 2.52 & 1.353 \\ \hline Task 4 & 29 & 2.28 & 1.386 \\ \hline Task 5 & 29 & 2.62 & 1.522 \\ \hline Task 6 & 29 & 2.62 & 1.347 \\ \hline Task 7 & 29 & 3.10 & 1.047 \\ \hline Task 8 & 29 & 2.72 & 1.386 \\ \hline Task 9 & 29 & 3.00 & 1.069 \\ \hline Overall & 29 & 25.00 & 7.096 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: UBET Task completion scale results, without prosthesis evaluation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**UBET-Task Completion: Evaluation with Prosthesis**} \\ \hline  & **N** & **Mean** & **Std. Deviation** \\ \hline Task 1 & 12 & 2.50 & 1.243 \\ \hline Task 2 & 12 & 2.08 & 1.676 \\ \hline Task 3 & 12 & 2.33 & 1.371 \\ \hline Task 4 & 12 & 2.33 & 1.497 \\ \hline Task 5 & 12 & 2.25 & 1.288 \\ \hline Task 6 & 12 & 2.67 & 1.155 \\ \hline Task 7 & 12 & 2.92 & 1.165 \\ \hline Task 8 & 12 & 3.17 & 1.115 \\ \hline Task 9 & 12 & 3.42 & 0.515 \\ \hline Overall & 12 & 23.67 & 6.050 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: UBET Task completion scale results, with prosthesis evaluation. A trend of greater utilization of the distal portions of the stump in tests without the prosthesis can be appreciated; conversely, with the prosthesis on, the trend is toward greater utilization of the more proximal portions of the prosthetic limb. However, this trend is not confirmed in tasks 3-6-7-8-9, which involves the distal part of the limb (e.g., putting on a sock, riding a scooter by grasping the steering with both hands, detaching two Lego bricks, opening a zip of a case with eight crayons and extracting one of them). Notably, small percentages are scored at N value overall. UBET scale results were also compared for age groups (Table 6) and amputation levels (Table 7).