Comparison of metabolic cost, performance, and efficiency of propulsion using an ergonomic hand drive mechanism and a conventional manual wheelchair.
Comparison of metabolic cost, performance, and efficiency of propulsion using an ergonomic hand drive mechanism and a conventional manual wheelchair.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.apmr.2013.08.238
复制
发表时间：
2014-03
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Tillman, Mark D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Zukowski, Lisa A.;Roper, Jaimie A.;Shechtman, Orit;Otzel, Dana M.;Bouwkamp, Jason;Tillman, Mark D.
比较使用新型人体工程学手动驱动机构(EHDM)和传统手动轮椅(CMW)的推进的代谢成本(VO2消耗、HR和推送次数)、性能(速度和行驶距离)和效率(VO2效率)。重复测量交叉设计半圆形轨道12例成年全职手动轮椅使用者，脊髓损伤年龄(38.8±12.4)岁，(73.7±13.3)kg，(173.6±11.1)cm，伤后6个月以上，身体功能稳定。参与者在装有EHDM的同一把椅子上，以自己选择的速度在CMW中推进了三分半钟。使用配对t检验比较每个试验的最后30秒内轮椅状态下的速度、行走距离、推送次数、氧气消耗、氧气效率和心率(α=0.0 1)。与EHDM组比较，CMW组运动距离(33.6±10.8m比22.4±7.8m，p=0.001)、运动速度(1.12±0.4m/S比0.75±0.3m/S，p=0.001)和氧合效率(0.10±0.03ml/kg/m比0.15±0.03ml/kg/m，p=0.001)明显增加。心率(100.5±14.5次/分)和心率(100.5±14.5次/分)、氧耗量(6.43±1.9ml/kg/min比6.19±1.7ml/kg/min，p=0.573)和心率(97.4±20.2bpm/min)差异无统计学意义(P=0.420)。结果表明，虽然EHDM牺牲了性能和效率，但代谢成本没有显著差异。对EHDM进行修改(例如增加传动装置)可以纠正性能和效率的下降，同时保持相似的代谢成本。尽管EHDM不是一种理想的技术，但它可以被轮椅使用者和康复专家视为一种替代的移动方式。
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). Repeated measures crossover design Semi-circular track 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. 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. 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). 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). 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Priebe, Jonathon R.;Kram, Rodger
通讯作者：
Kram, Rodger
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
HILBERS, PA;WHITE, TP
通讯作者：
WHITE, TP
DOI：
10.1038/sc.1985.31
发表时间：
1985-01-01
期刊：
PARAPLEGIA
影响因子：
--
作者：
ALJURE, J;ELTORAI, I;JOHNSON, B
通讯作者：
JOHNSON, B
影响因子：
3
作者：
LUNDQVIST, C;SIOSTEEN, A;SULLIVAN, M
通讯作者：
SULLIVAN, M
DOI：
10.1016/j.rehab.2009.12.001
发表时间：
2010-03-01
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Sarraj, A. Rifai;Massarelli, R.;Kabbara, M.
通讯作者：
Kabbara, M.