OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance characteristics of different electric-powered wheelchairs (EPWs) and to evaluate the effectiveness of the American National Standards Institute/Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (ANSI/RESNA) wheelchair standards. DESIGN: Five types of EPWs were selected. Three wheelchairs of each type were tested according to the ANSI/RESNA wheelchair standards. SETTING: Rehabilitation engineering center. SPECIMENS: Fifteen wheelchairs. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Static tipping angle; dynamic tipping score; braking distance; energy consumption; static, impact, and fatigue strength; and climatic conditioning. RESULTS: There were significant differences (P<.05) among the 5 types of EPWs for static stability when facing both uphill and downhill in the most-stable and least-stable configurations. There were significant differences (P<.05) among the EPWs on most of the dynamic stability tests. There were also significant differences (P<.05) among EPWs for all the effectiveness of brakes conditions, as well as between 2 wheelchairs for the energy consumption testing. There were several failures among the wheelchairs during the static, impact, and fatigue strength testing and during the climatic testing. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that EPWs can vary greatly with respect to static and dynamic stability, braking distance, range, strength testing, and climatic conditioning. All these factors have a substantial effect on safety and performance.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance characteristics of different electric-powered wheelchairs (EPWs) and to evaluate the effectiveness of the American National Standards Institute/Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (ANSI/RESNA) wheelchair standards. DESIGN: Five types of EPWs were selected. Three wheelchairs of each type were tested according to the ANSI/RESNA wheelchair standards. SETTING: Rehabilitation engineering center. SPECIMENS: Fifteen wheelchairs. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Static tipping angle; dynamic tipping score; braking distance; energy consumption; static, impact, and fatigue strength; and climatic conditioning. RESULTS: There were significant differences (P<.05) among the 5 types of EPWs for static stability when facing both uphill and downhill in the most-stable and least-stable configurations. There were significant differences (P<.05) among the EPWs on most of the dynamic stability tests. There were also significant differences (P<.05) among EPWs for all the effectiveness of brakes conditions, as well as between 2 wheelchairs for the energy consumption testing. There were several failures among the wheelchairs during the static, impact, and fatigue strength testing and during the climatic testing. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that EPWs can vary greatly with respect to static and dynamic stability, braking distance, range, strength testing, and climatic conditioning. All these factors have a substantial effect on safety and performance.
Authors: Lynn A Worobey; Allen W Heinemann; Kim D Anderson; Denise Fyffe; Trevor A Dyson-Hudson; Theresa Berner; Michael L Boninger Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 3.966