Literature DB >> 2347318

Physiological and biomechanical differences between wheelchair-dependent and able-bodied subjects during wheelchair ergometry.

D D Brown1, R G Knowlton, J Hamill, T L Schneider, R K Hetzler.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the physiological and biomechanical responses of wheelchair-dependent persons (WCD) to able-bodied persons (AB) during manual wheelchair ergometry. Five WCD and five AB performed a discontinuous wheelchair ergometer test starting at 12.8 W at 30 rev.min-1 (57 m.min-1) with increments of 7.0 W at 6-min intervals. Biomechanical data were collected 3.5 min into each stage followed by the collection of physiological data. After the fifth stage, peak oxygen consumption was determined by having the subject work against a resistance of 14.7-19.6 N at 30 rev.min-1. The WCD had significantly higher net mechanical efficiency at 26.7, 33.6 and 40.6 W in comparison to the AB. The WCD had significantly greater shoulder extension at the point of initial wheel contact as measured by the shoulder angle, while the AB had significantly greater shoulder range of motion at all work rates in comparison to the WCD. The results demonstrate that a significant physiological difference exists in the manner by which WCD and AB accomplish wheelchair ergometry. The biomechanical differences between AB and WCD were found to be a prominent factor contributing to the higher mechanical efficiency of WCD over AB. It was concluded that basic physiological and biomechanical differences exist between WCD and AB in manual wheelchair locomotion and that these differences are important considerations to the interpretation of data in wheelchair ergometry studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2347318     DOI: 10.1007/bf00839155

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol        ISSN: 0301-5548


  12 in total

1.  Wheelchair ergonomics and physiological testing of prototypes.

Authors:  L H van der Woude; G de Groot; A P Hollander; G J van Ingen Schenau; R H Rozendal
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 2.778

2.  The effects of arm crank training on the physiological responses to submaximal wheelchair ergometry.

Authors:  D A Sedlock; R G Knowlton; P I Fitzgerald
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol       Date:  1988

3.  Metabolic responses of women to exercise attributable to long term use of a manual wheelchair.

Authors:  M Tahamont; R G Knowlton; M N Sawka; D S Miles
Journal:  Paraplegia       Date:  1986-10

4.  Metabolic and cardiopulmonary responses to wheelchair and bicycle ergometry.

Authors:  R M Glaser; M N Sawka; L L Laubach; A G Suryaprasad
Journal:  J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol       Date:  1979-06

5.  The circulatory behaviour in complete chronic paraplegia.

Authors:  Y Bidart; M Maury
Journal:  Paraplegia       Date:  1973-05

6.  Energy expenditure and heart rate in driving a wheel-chair ergometer.

Authors:  S O Brattgård; G Grimby; O Höök
Journal:  Scand J Rehabil Med       Date:  1970

7.  Metabolic and circulatory responses to wheelchair and arm crank exercise.

Authors:  M N Sawka; R M Glaser; S W Wilde; T C von Luhrte
Journal:  J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol       Date:  1980-11

8.  Wheelchair exercise performance of the young, middle-aged, and elderly.

Authors:  M N Sawka; R M Glaser; L L Laubach; O Al-Samkari; A G Suryaprasad
Journal:  J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol       Date:  1981-04

9.  Kinematic features of wheelchair propulsion.

Authors:  D J Sanderson; H J Sommer
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 2.712

10.  The mechanical efficiency of wheelchair dependent women during wheelchair ergometry.

Authors:  R G Knowlton; P I Fitzgerald; D A Sedlock
Journal:  Can J Appl Sport Sci       Date:  1981-12
View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Wheelchair propulsion biomechanics: implications for wheelchair sports.

Authors:  Y Vanlandewijck; D Theisen; D Daly
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 11.136

2.  Differences in performance between trained and untrained subjects during a 30-s sprint test in a wheelchair ergometer.

Authors:  H E Veeger; E M Lute; K Roeleveld; L H van der Woude
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol       Date:  1992

Review 3.  The ergonomics of wheelchair configuration for optimal performance in the wheelchair court sports.

Authors:  Barry S Mason; Lucas H V van der Woude; Victoria L Goosey-Tolfrey
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 11.136

4.  The physiological and biomechanical effects of forwards and reverse sports wheelchair propulsion.

Authors:  Barry S Mason; John P Lenton; Victoria L Goosey-Tolfrey
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2014-03-05       Impact factor: 1.985

5.  How Was Studied the Effect of Manual Wheelchair Configuration on Propulsion Biomechanics: A Systematic Review on Methodologies.

Authors:  Capucine Fritsch; Yoann Poulet; Joseph Bascou; Patricia Thoreux; Christophe Sauret
Journal:  Front Rehabil Sci       Date:  2022-05-02

6.  The Functional Classification and Field Test Performance in Wheelchair Basketball Players.

Authors:  Susana María Gil; Javier Yanci; Montserrat Otero; Jurgi Olasagasti; Aduna Badiola; Iraia Bidaurrazaga-Letona; Aitor Iturricastillo; Cristina Granados
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 2.193

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.