Performance of selected lightweight wheelchairs on ANSI/RESNA tests. American National Standards Institute-Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America.

OBJECTIVE This study provides data for clinicians and wheelchair users to compare the durability, stability, and cost effectiveness of three different lightweight wheelchair models: the Everest & Jennings EZ Lite, the Invacare Rolls 2000, and the Quickie Designs Breezy. A second objective was to compare the results from this study to those published for ultralight and institutional depot wheelchairs. DESIGN Randomized standards testing of three wheelchair models from each manufacturer (nine wheelchairs total). RESULTS There were no significant differences (p > .05) in fatigue life, life-cycle cost, or static stability between the three models of lightweight wheelchairs (ie, EZ Lite, Rolls 2000, or Breezy). There were, however, significant differences (p < .05) in fatigue life among the lightweight wheelchairs of this study and the published results for ultralight rehabilitation wheelchairs and for depot wheelchairs. The lightweight wheelchairs had an average fatigue life greater than the depot wheelchairs but less than the rehabilitation wheelchairs. A depot-type wheelchair was defined as a manual wheelchair designed for hospital or institutional use. At lightweight wheelchair was defined as a manual wheelchair with minimal adjustments designed for individual or institutional use. An ultralight rehabilitation wheelchair was defined as a manual wheelchair designed for an individual's use as a long-term mobility aid. CONCLUSION The three models of lightweight wheelchairs tested are substantially similar and their fatigue lives are significantly (p < .05) lower than rehabilitation wheelchairs. Ultralight rehabilitation wheelchairs are the most cost effective over the life of the wheelchair, costing 3.4 times less (dollars per life cycle) than depot wheelchairs, and 2.3 times less (dollars per life cycle) than the lightweight wheelchairs tested in this study.

[1]  R.A. Cooper,et al.  Wheelchair impact response to ISO test pendulum and ISO standard curb , 1994 .

[2]  R.A. Cooper.  High-tech wheelchairs gain the competitive edge , 1991, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine.

[3]  R L Kirby,et al.  WHEELCHAIR-RELATED ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY TIPS AND FALLS AMONG NONINSTITUTIONALIZED USERS OF MANUALLY PROPELLED WHEELCHAIRS IN NOVA SCOTIA , 1994, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[4]  Rory A. Cooper.  Stability of a wheelchair controlled by a human pilot , 1993 .

[5]  R N Robertson,et al.  Life-cycle analysis of depot versus rehabilitation manual wheelchairs. , 1996, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[6]  R A Cooper,et al.  Determination of wheelchair dynamic load data for use with finite element analysis. , 1996, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[7]  R L Kirby,et al.  NONFATAL WHEELCHAIR-RELATED ACCIDENTS REPORTED TO THE NATIONAL ELECTRONIC INJURY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM , 1994, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[8]  R L Kirby,et al.  Influence of seat position on the static and dynamic forward and rear stability of occupied wheelchairs. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[9]  Denise Chesney,et al.  A Guide to Wheelchair Selection: How to Use the Ansi/Resna Wheelchair Standards to Buy a Wheelchair , 1994 .

[10]  Thacker Jg,et al.  Characterization of the dynamic stress response of manual and powered wheelchair frames , 1993 .

[11]  Rory A. Cooper,et al.  Rehabilitation Engineering Applied to Mobility and Manipulation , 1995 .

[12]  R A Cooper,et al.  Evaluation of methods for determining rearward static stability of manual wheelchairs. , 1994, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.