A comparison of vertical reaction forces during propulsion of three different one-arm drive wheelchairs by hemiplegic users

Abstract Purpose: The aim of this pilot study was to compare the vertical reaction forces (N) generated in three different Action 3 manual one-arm drive wheelchairs: dual handrim, a lever drive and a Neater Uni-wheelchair (NUW). A CONFORmat® Pressure measurement mat, placed on top of the users’ prescribed cushion, measured vertical force at the buttock/seat interface on both hemiplegic and non-hemiplegic sides in each wheelchair. Methods: Fifteen hemiplegic users were randomly assigned each wheelchair to drive around an indoor obstacle course. During propulsion of a multiple sensor, continuous measurement of force was recorded. Time taken to complete the circuit was recorded. Mean force and confidence intervals for each buttock were calculated per user per wheelchair. Results: The dual handrim produced the highest vertical force during propulsion under the right buttock ( = 484.43; SD = 55.4; p < 0.001) and the lever drive produced the least force ( = 368.05; SD = 53.55; p < 0.01). The NUW completed the course quickest (p < 0.01). Conclusions: The dual-handrim wheelchair requires the greatest vertical force during propulsion. Since increases in this seat vertical reaction force may be related to the propulsive force. Further investigation is indicated as this may be a significant factor for clinicians when prescribing one-arm drive wheelchairs. Implications for Rehabilitation Review of clinical reasoning in prescribing wheelchairs. Addition of the Neater Uni-wheelchair to wheelchair services prescribing lists.

[1]  R L Kirby,et al.  Wheelchair propulsion: descriptive comparison of hemiplegic and two-hand patterns during selected activities. , 1999, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[2]  John H Evans,et al.  Pelvic movement and interface pressure distribution during manual wheelchair propulsion. , 2003, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[3]  Amy Hurst,et al.  Empowering individuals with do-it-yourself assistive technology , 2011, ASSETS.

[4]  Jasper Reenalda,et al.  Analysis of healthy sitting behavior: interface pressure distribution and subcutaneous tissue oxygenation. , 2009, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[5]  Mary M Rodgers,et al.  Prevalence and identification of shoulder pathology in athletic and nonathletic wheelchair users with shoulder pain: A pilot study. , 2004, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[6]  Maury A. Nussbaum,et al.  Driver sitting comfort and discomfort (part II): Relationships with and prediction from interface pressure , 2008 .

[7]  D Veeger,et al.  Mechanical advantage in wheelchair lever propulsion: effect on physical strain and efficiency. , 1997, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[8]  D. Barer,et al.  Measurement of activities of daily living , 1989 .

[9]  C. O. Kennedy.  A controlled trial , 1971, British Homeopathic Journal.

[10]  B Phillips,et al.  Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. , 1993, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[11]  Jeffrey J Borckardt,et al.  Shoulder pain: a comparison of wheelchair athletes and nonathletic wheelchair users. , 2003, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[12]  Anne Mandy,et al.  Measures of energy expenditure and comfort in an ESP wheelchair: a controlled trial using hemiplegic users' , 2009, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

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

[14]  T. Kernozek,et al.  Seat interface pressures of individuals with paraplegia: influence of dynamic wheelchair locomotion compared with static seated measurements. , 1998, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[15]  Anne Mandy,et al.  User evaluation of the Neater Uni- wheelchair in the home environment: an exploratory pilot study , 2011 .

[16]  H E Veeger,et al.  Effect of handrim velocity on mechanical efficiency in wheelchair propulsion. , 1992, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[17]  Kevin Lucas,et al.  Energy expenditure, and comfort in a modified wheelchair for people with hemiplegia: A controlled trial , 2007, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.