Lisa A Zukowski1, Jaimie A Roper2, Orit Shechtman3, Dana M Otzel2, Jason Bouwkamp2, Mark D Tillman2. 1. Department of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Electronic address: zukowski@ufl.edu. 2. Department of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 3. Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the metabolic cost (oxygen uptake per unit time [V˙o2 consumption], heart rate, and number of pushes), performance (velocity and distance traveled), and efficiency (oxygen uptake per distance traveled [Vo2 efficiency]) of propulsion using a novel ergonomic hand drive mechanism (EHDM) and a conventional manual wheelchair (CMW). DESIGN: Repeated-measures crossover design. SETTING: Semicircular track. PARTICIPANTS: Adult full-time manual wheelchair users with spinal cord injuries (N=12; mean age ± SD, 38.8±12.4y; mean body mass ± SD, 73.7±13.3kg; mean height ± SD, 173.6±11.1cm) who were medically and functionally stable and at least 6 months postinjury. INTERVENTION: Participants propelled themselves for 3.5 minutes at a self-selected pace in a CMW and in the same chair fitted with the EHDM. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Velocity, distance traveled, number of pushes, V˙o2 consumption, Vo2 efficiency, and heart rate were compared by wheelchair condition for the last 30 seconds of each trial using paired t tests (α=.01). RESULTS: The CMW condition resulted in more distance traveled (33.6±10.8m vs 22.4±7.8m; P=.001), greater velocity (1.12±0.4m/s vs .75±.30m/s; P=.001), and better Vo2 efficiency (.10±.03mL·kg(-1)·m(-1) vs .15±.03mL·kg(-1)·m(-1); P<.001) than the EHDM condition, respectively. No significant differences were found between the 2 conditions for number of pushes (27.5±5.7 vs 25.7±5.4; P=.366), V˙o2 consumption (6.43±1.9mL·kg(-1)·min(-1) vs 6.19±1.7mL·kg(-1)·min(-1); P=.573), or heart rate (100.5±14.5 beats per minute vs 97.4±20.2 beats per minute; P=.42). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that metabolic costs did not differ significantly; however, performance and efficiency were sacrificed with the EHDM. Modifications to the EHDM (eg, addition of gearing) could rectify the performance and efficiency decrements while maintaining similar metabolic costs. Although not an ideal technology, the EHDM can be considered as an alternative mode of mobility by wheelchair users and rehabilitation specialists.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the metabolic cost (oxygen uptake per unit time [V˙o2 consumption], heart rate, and number of pushes), performance (velocity and distance traveled), and efficiency (oxygen uptake per distance traveled [Vo2 efficiency]) of propulsion using a novel ergonomic hand drive mechanism (EHDM) and a conventional manual wheelchair (CMW). DESIGN: Repeated-measures crossover design. SETTING: Semicircular track. PARTICIPANTS: Adult full-time manual wheelchair users with spinal cord injuries (N=12; mean age ± SD, 38.8±12.4y; mean body mass ± SD, 73.7±13.3kg; mean height ± SD, 173.6±11.1cm) who were medically and functionally stable and at least 6 months postinjury. INTERVENTION: Participants propelled themselves for 3.5 minutes at a self-selected pace in a CMW and in the same chair fitted with the EHDM. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Velocity, distance traveled, number of pushes, V˙o2 consumption, Vo2 efficiency, and heart rate were compared by wheelchair condition for the last 30 seconds of each trial using paired t tests (α=.01). RESULTS: The CMW condition resulted in more distance traveled (33.6±10.8m vs 22.4±7.8m; P=.001), greater velocity (1.12±0.4m/s vs .75±.30m/s; P=.001), and better Vo2 efficiency (.10±.03mL·kg(-1)·m(-1) vs .15±.03mL·kg(-1)·m(-1); P<.001) than the EHDM condition, respectively. No significant differences were found between the 2 conditions for number of pushes (27.5±5.7 vs 25.7±5.4; P=.366), V˙o2 consumption (6.43±1.9mL·kg(-1)·min(-1) vs 6.19±1.7mL·kg(-1)·min(-1); P=.573), or heart rate (100.5±14.5 beats per minute vs 97.4±20.2 beats per minute; P=.42). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that metabolic costs did not differ significantly; however, performance and efficiency were sacrificed with the EHDM. Modifications to the EHDM (eg, addition of gearing) could rectify the performance and efficiency decrements while maintaining similar metabolic costs. Although not an ideal technology, the EHDM can be considered as an alternative mode of mobility by wheelchair users and rehabilitation specialists.
Authors: Thomas A le Rütte; Fransisca Trigo; Luca Bessems; Lucas H V van der Woude; Riemer J K Vegter Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 4.262