Evaluation of a wheelchair prototype with non-conventional, manual propulsion

Sarraj, Ahmad Rifai; Massarelli, R.; Rigal, François; Moussa, Elie; Jacob, Christophe; Fazah, Abdallah; Kabbara, M.

doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2009.12.001

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rifai Sarraj et al, for example, created a questionnaire to assess user satisfaction of lever-propelled wheelchairs, taking into account items such as comfort, safety, aesthetics, portability, etc. [22]. The torsion spring mechanism used in this study, for instance, is designed with a belt transmission that prohibits backward propulsion with the levers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical efficiency of two commercial lever-propulsion mechanisms for manual wheelchair locomotion

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The purpose of this study was to (1) evaluate the mechanical efficiency (ME) of two commercially available leverpropulsion mechanisms for wheelchairs and (2) compare the ME of lever propulsion with hand rim propulsion within the same wheelchair. Of the two mechanisms, one contained a torsion spring while the other used a roller clutch design. We hypothesized that the torsion spring mechanism would increase the ME of propulsion due to a passive recovery stroke enabled by the mechanism. Ten nondisabled male participants with no prior manual wheeling experience performed submaximal exercise tests using both lever-propulsion mechanisms and hand rim propulsion on two different wheelchairs. Cardiopulmonary parameters including oxygen uptake (VO 2 ), heart rate (HR), and energy expenditure (En) were determined. Total external power (P ext ) was measured using a drag test protocol. ME was determined by the ratio of P ext to En. Results indicated no significant effect of lever-propulsion mechanism for all physiological measures tested. This suggests that the torsion spring did not result in a physiological benefit compared with the roller clutch mechanism. However, both lever-propulsion mechanisms showed decreased VO 2 and HR and increased ME (as a function of slope) compared with hand rim propulsion (p < 0.001). This indicates that both lever-propulsion mechanisms tested are more mechanically efficient than conventional hand rim propulsion, especially when slopes are encountered.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical efficiency of two commercial lever-propulsion mechanisms for manual wheelchair locomotion

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, wheelchair users report greater overall satisfaction with a lever-propelled wheelchair as compared to a CMW, although previous designs do not consider user anthropometrics 9,10 . Therefore, a novel ergonomic hand drive mechanism (EHDM) was designed and machined for this study that incorporates an adjustable lever length as well as a pivoting handgrip.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Lever-propelled wheelchairs have been developed as an alternative to the CMW and are designed to reduce repetitive strain injuries 2,9,10 . Previous research shows that lever-propelled wheelchair designs shift and reduce shoulder muscular demands, decreasing the risk of incurring rotator cuff injuries 2 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Metabolic Cost, Performance, and Efficiency of Propulsion Using an Ergonomic Hand Drive Mechanism and a Conventional Manual Wheelchair

Zukowski

Roper

Shechtman

et al. 2014

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare the metabolic cost (VO2 consumption, HR, and number of pushes), performance (velocity and distance travelled), and efficiency (VO2 efficiency) of propulsion using a novel ergonomic hand drive mechanism (EHDM) and a conventional manual wheelchair (CMW). Design Repeated measures crossover design Setting Semi-circular track Participants Twelve adult full-time manual wheelchair users with spinal cord injuries (38.8±12.4 yrs, 73.7±13.3 kg, 173.6±11.1 cm) who were medically and functionally stable and at least six months post injury. Interventions Participants propelled themselves for three and a half 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, VO2 consumption, VO2 efficiency, and heart rate were compared by wheelchair condition for the last 30 seconds of each trial using paired t-tests (α=0.01). Results The CMW condition resulted in more distance traveled (33.6±10.8 m vs. 22.4±7.8 m, p=0.001), greater velocity (1.12±0.4 m/s vs. 0.75±0.3 m/s, p=0.001), and better VO2 efficiency (0.10±0.03ml/kg/m vs. 0.15±0.03ml/kg/m, p<0.001) than the EHDM condition. No significant differences were found between the two conditions for number of pushes (27.5±5.7 vs. 25.7±5.4, p=0.366), VO2 consumption (6.43±1.9 ml/kg/min vs. 6.19±1.7 ml/kg/min, p=0.573), or HR (100.5±14.5 bpm vs. 97.4±20.2 bpm, p=0.420). Conclusions The results demonstrate that metabolic costs did not differ significantly although performance and efficiency were sacrificed with the EHDM. Modifications to the EHDM (e.g. 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.

show abstract

“…Compared with PRP, both of these methods increase the joint range of motion in the upper limb, particularly at the wrist and shoulder joints ( 1 , 5 , 11 ). Lever-propelled devices were mainly designed to reduce repetitive strain injuries ( 1 , 6 , 11 , 13 ). In general, GME in lever-propelled devices is reported to be higher compared with PRP, and wheelchair users report greater overall satisfaction with lever-propelled wheelchairs, but previous designs often do not consider user anthropometrics ( 1 , 4 , 13 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Metabolic Cost and Mechanical Efficiency of a Novel Handle-Based Device for Wheelchair Propulsion

Puchinger¹,

Kurup²,

Gstaltner³

et al. 2022

JRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate differences in metabolic cost and gross mechanical efficiency of a novel handlebased wheelchair propulsion device and to compare its performance with conventional push-rim propulsion.Design: Double-group comparative study between 2 different propulsion methods.Participants: Eight paraplegic individuals and 10 non-disabled persons.Methods: Participants performed the same exercise using a push-rim device and the novel handle-based device on a wheelchair- based test rig. The exercise consisted of a combined submaximal and maximal test. Power output, oxygen uptake, ventilation, respiratory exchange ratio and heart rate were recorded continuously during the tests. Analysis of variance was performed to determine the effects of group, mode and on power output.Results: Submaximal exercise resulted in a higher efficiency for the novel device and significant main effects of propulsion mode on all investigated parameters, except heart rate. On the respiratory exchange ratio, a significant interaction effect was found for both mode and group. The maximal exercise resulted in a higher peak power output and lower peak heart rate during propulsion using the handle-based device. A significant main effect on mode for mean peak power output, ventilation and heart rate was also observed.Conclusion: Wheelchair propulsion using the handlebased device resulted in lower physical responses and higher mechanical efficiency, suggesting that this novel design may be well suited for indoor use, thereby offering an attractive alternative to pushrim wheelchairs.

show abstract

Evaluation of a wheelchair prototype with non-conventional, manual propulsion

Abstract: We conclude that the prototype wheelchair is highly acceptable and comfortable and can be recommended to disabled sportspersons. The prototype's weak points are mainly related to ergonomic aspects, which could be improved in future models.

Cited by 16 publications

References 21 publications

Mechanical efficiency of two commercial lever-propulsion mechanisms for manual wheelchair locomotion

Mechanical efficiency of two commercial lever-propulsion mechanisms for manual wheelchair locomotion

Comparison of Metabolic Cost, Performance, and Efficiency of Propulsion Using an Ergonomic Hand Drive Mechanism and a Conventional Manual Wheelchair

Metabolic Cost and Mechanical Efficiency of a Novel Handle-Based Device for Wheelchair Propulsion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About