OBJECTIVES: To describe a standard clinical protocol for the objective assessment of manual wheelchair propulsion; to establish preliminary values for temporal and kinetic parameters derived from the protocol; and to develop graphical references and a proposed application process for use by clinicians. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: Six research institutions that collect kinetic wheelchair propulsion data and contribute that data to an international data pool. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects with spinal cord injury (N=128). INTERVENTIONS: Subjects propelled a wheelchair from a stationary position to a self-selected velocity across a hard tile surface, a low pile carpet, and up an Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant ramp. Unilateral kinetic data were obtained from subjects using a force and moment sensing pushrim. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in self-selected velocity, peak resultant force, push frequency, and stroke length across all surfaces, relationship between (1) weight-normalized peak resultant force and self-selected velocity and (2) push frequency and self-selected velocity. RESULTS: Graphical references were generated for potential clinical use based on the relation between body weight-normalized peak resultant force, push frequency, and velocity. Self-selected velocity decreased (ramp < carpet < tile), peak resultant forces increased (ramp > carpet > tile), and push frequency and stroke length remained unchanged when compared across the different surfaces. Weight-normalized peak resultant force was a significant predictor of velocity on tile and ramp. Push frequency was a significant predictor of velocity on tile, carpet, and ramp. CONCLUSIONS: We present preliminary data generated from a clinically practical manual wheelchair propulsion evaluation protocol and we describe a proposed method for clinicians to objectively evaluate manual wheelchair propulsion.
OBJECTIVES: To describe a standard clinical protocol for the objective assessment of manual wheelchair propulsion; to establish preliminary values for temporal and kinetic parameters derived from the protocol; and to develop graphical references and a proposed application process for use by clinicians. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: Six research institutions that collect kinetic wheelchair propulsion data and contribute that data to an international data pool. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects with spinal cord injury (N=128). INTERVENTIONS: Subjects propelled a wheelchair from a stationary position to a self-selected velocity across a hard tile surface, a low pile carpet, and up an Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant ramp. Unilateral kinetic data were obtained from subjects using a force and moment sensing pushrim. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in self-selected velocity, peak resultant force, push frequency, and stroke length across all surfaces, relationship between (1) weight-normalized peak resultant force and self-selected velocity and (2) push frequency and self-selected velocity. RESULTS: Graphical references were generated for potential clinical use based on the relation between body weight-normalized peak resultant force, push frequency, and velocity. Self-selected velocity decreased (ramp < carpet < tile), peak resultant forces increased (ramp > carpet > tile), and push frequency and stroke length remained unchanged when compared across the different surfaces. Weight-normalized peak resultant force was a significant predictor of velocity on tile and ramp. Push frequency was a significant predictor of velocity on tile, carpet, and ramp. CONCLUSIONS: We present preliminary data generated from a clinically practical manual wheelchair propulsion evaluation protocol and we describe a proposed method for clinicians to objectively evaluate manual wheelchair propulsion.
Authors: Ronald J Triolo; Stephanie Nogan Bailey; Lisa M Lombardo; Michael E Miller; Kevin Foglyano; Musa L Audu Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Chandrasekaran Jayaraman; Yaejin Moon; Ian M Rice; Elizabeth T Hsiao Wecksler; Carolyn L Beck; Jacob J Sosnoff Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 3.240