Benjamin Gebrosky1, Jonathan Pearlman1,2, Rory Cooper1,2,3,4. 1. Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Department of Veterans Affairs, Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Rehabilitation Science and Technology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
Background: The use of ultralight manual wheelchairs has been shown to benefit wheelchair users when compared to other types. New aluminum alloy frame materials coming to the market have not been independently evaluated for durability and cost benefit. Methods: Three 70XX aluminum ultralight wheelchair models were tested and compared based on dimensions, stability, and durability using the ANSI/RESNA standards. The results were also compared to previous manual wheelchair studies. Results: This study found that there were no significant cost benefit or durability differences between the wheelchairs tested and previous aluminum or titanium ultralight rigid models. Additionally, 5 of the 9 wheelchairs tested failed to meet the minimum ANSI/RESNA requirements for durability. Conclusion: These results are similar to results from previous rigid ultralight wheelchair studies and indicate that the quality of wheelchairs of this type has not improved and better requirements are necessary for wheelchairs marketed in the United States.
Background: The use of ultralight manual wheelchairs has been shown to benefit wheelchair users when compared to other types. New aluminum alloy frame materials coming to the market have not been independently evaluated for durability and cost benefit. Methods: Three 70XX aluminum ultralight wheelchair models were tested and compared based on dimensions, stability, and durability using the ANSI/RESNA standards. The results were also compared to previous manual wheelchair studies. Results: This study found that there were no significant cost benefit or durability differences between the wheelchairs tested and previous aluminum or titanium ultralight rigid models. Additionally, 5 of the 9 wheelchairs tested failed to meet the minimum ANSI/RESNA requirements for durability. Conclusion: These results are similar to results from previous rigid ultralight wheelchair studies and indicate that the quality of wheelchairs of this type has not improved and better requirements are necessary for wheelchairs marketed in the United States.
Authors: Hsin-yi Liu; Jonathan Pearlman; Rosemarie Cooper; Eun-kyoung Hong; Hongwu Wang; Benjamin Salatin; Rory A Cooper Journal: J Rehabil Res Dev Date: 2010
Authors: R A Cooper; J Gonzalez; B Lawrence; A Renschler; M L Boninger; D P VanSickle Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Maria Luisa Toro; Lynn Worobey; Michael L Boninger; Rory A Cooper; Jonathan Pearlman Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 3.966
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