Wheelchair propulsion: descriptive comparison of hemiplegic and two-hand patterns during selected activities.

Most manual wheelchair users with hemiplegia use both the unaffected arm and leg to propel their wheelchairs. The objective of this study was to compare the wheelchair propulsion of subjects using the hemiplegic pattern (one arm and one leg) with subjects using two hands. In a case-controlled study in a kinesiologic laboratory, nine wheelchair users who used the hemiplegic pattern were compared with nine matched controls who used the two-handed pattern. Participants were tested for propelling and stopping the wheelchair, forward and backward, on a level surface and on a 5 degree incline. Video recording was used to assess deviation from the midline, foot slippage, the number of propulsive cycles, and the propelling velocity. Also, on the 5 degree incline, we noted the need for support when unlocking the wheel locks, instances of grabbing the side rail, or rollback between propulsions. The participants using the hemiplegic pattern when propelling up the incline deviated more to the hemiparetic side (P < 0.05), used more propulsive cycles per unit of distance (P < 0.01), were slower (P < 0.001), and used the side rail more often (P < 0.05). When propelling forward on level ground, the participants using the hemiplegic pattern were slower (P < 0.005). When stopping after moving backward down the incline, they were more likely to deviate to the unaffected side (P < 0.01). In conclusion, wheelchair users who use the hemiplegic pattern experience more difficulties than those using two hands, some of which may be amenable to improvements in wheelchair prescription and training.

[1]  R A Cooper,et al.  Methods for determining three-dimensional wheelchair pushrim forces and moments: a technical note. , 1997, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[2]  D. Sulch,et al.  Relationship between wheelchair propulsion and independent walking in hemiplegic stroke. , 1995, Stroke.

[3]  R H Rozendal,et al.  The effect of rear wheel camber in manual wheelchair propulsion. , 1989, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[4]  T. Olsen,et al.  Hemineglect in acute stroke--incidence and prognostic implications. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. , 1997, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[5]  D J Sanderson,et al.  Kinematic features of wheelchair propulsion. , 1985, Journal of biomechanics.

[6]  R H Rozendal,et al.  Seat height in handrim wheelchair propulsion. , 1989, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[7]  M Lamontagne,et al.  Biomechanical analysis of wheelchair propulsion for various seating positions. , 1992, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[8]  G Cottam,et al.  Wheelchair obstacle course performance in right cerebral vascular accident victims. , 1989, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[9]  C E Brubaker,et al.  Biomechanics of wheelchair propulsion as a function of seat position and user-to-chair interface. , 1992, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[10]  L. Harvey,et al.  Maximal physiological responses during arm cranking and treadmill wheelchair propulsion in T4–T6 paraplegic men , 1995, Paraplegia.

[11]  H E Veeger,et al.  Propulsion technique in hand rim wheelchair ambulation. , 1989, Journal of medical engineering & technology.

[12]  G R Fernie,et al.  An interface to enhance mobility for people with hemispatial neglect. , 1997, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[13]  C G Warren,et al.  Wheelchair propulsion in the quadriplegic patient. , 1974, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.