Physiological parameters depending on two different types of manual wheelchair propulsion

ABSTRACT Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare aerobic parameters in the multistage field test (MFT) in hand rim wheelchair propulsion and lever wheelchair propulsion. Methods. Twenty-one men performed MFT using two different types of propulsion, i.e., lever and hand rim wheelchair propulsion. The covered distance and physiological variables (oxygen uptake (VO2), minute ventilation (VE), carbon dioxide output (VCO2), respiratory coefficient (RQ), and heart rate (HR)) were observed. Physiological variables were measured with Cosmed K5 system. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, t-test, Wilcoxon test and effect sizes (ESs) were used to assess differences. Statistical significance was set at p < .05. Results. A significantly longer distance was observed in lever wheelchair propulsion than in hand rim wheelchair propulsion (1,194 and 649 m, respectively). VO2max and RQ were higher in hand rim wheelchair propulsion. All physiological variables for the last (fifth) level of the test in hand rim propulsion were significantly higher than in lever wheelchair propulsion. ES was large for each observed difference. Conclusion. The lever wheelchair propulsion movement is less demanding than hand rim wheelchair propulsion and longer distances can be achieved by the user. There is a need to check lever wheelchair propulsion in different types of field tests.

[1]  Rory C. Flemmer,et al.  A review of manual wheelchairs , 2016, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[2]  Thomas W J Janssen,et al.  Manual wheelchairs: Research and innovation in rehabilitation, sports, daily life and health. , 2006, Medical engineering & physics.

[3]  A Rifai Sarraj,et al.  Evaluation of a wheelchair prototype with non-conventional, manual propulsion. , 2010, Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine.

[4]  John W Chow,et al.  Wheelchair propulsion biomechanics and wheelers' quality of life: an exploratory review , 2011, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[5]  J. Perry,et al.  Shoulder Muscular Demand During Lever-Activated Vs Pushrim Wheelchair Propulsion In Persons With Spinal Cord Injury , 2008, The journal of spinal cord medicine.

[6]  A J Dallmeijer,et al.  Alternative Modes of Manual Wheelchair Ambulation: An Overview , 2001, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[7]  Jaimie A. Roper,et al.  Wheelchair ergonomic hand drive mechanism use improves wrist mechanics associated with carpal tunnel syndrome. , 2014, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[8]  Andrew Jenkins,et al.  Analysis of a Lever-Driven Wheelchair Prototype and the Correlation Between , 2014 .

[9]  Makoto Sasaki,et al.  Shoulder joint contact force during lever-propelled wheelchair propulsion , 2015 .

[10]  Brendan W. Smith,et al.  Design and experimental evaluation of yoked hand-clutching for a lever drive chair , 2018, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[11]  Anne Mandy,et al.  A comparison of vertical reaction forces during propulsion of three different one-arm drive wheelchairs by hemiplegic users , 2014, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[12]  Lorena Palafox,et al.  The Resonating Arm Exerciser: design and pilot testing of a mechanically passive rehabilitation device that mimics robotic active assistance , 2013, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[13]  Barry S. Mason,et al.  The Ergonomics of Wheelchair Configuration for Optimal Performance in the Wheelchair Court Sports , 2012, Sports Medicine.

[15]  Jordon Lui,et al.  Mechanical efficiency of two commercial lever-propulsion mechanisms for manual wheelchair locomotion. , 2013, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[16]  Shikhar Agarwal,et al.  Analysis and optimization of All Terrain Wheelchair , 2015 .

[17]  Kenji Suzuki,et al.  A wheelchair with lever propulsion control for climbing up and down stairs , 2016, 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[18]  Claudine Auger,et al.  Issues for the selection of wheelchair-specific activity and participation outcome measures: a review. , 2008, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.