Load Redistribution in Variable Position Wheelchairs in People With Spinal Cord Injury
Load Redistribution in Variable Position Wheelchairs in People With Spinal Cord Injury
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/10790268.2010.11689674
复制
发表时间：
2010-02-01
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Sorenblum, Sharon E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sprigle, Stephen;Maurer, Christine;Sorenblum, Sharon E.
背景/目的：斜躺和斜躺可变位置座椅系统最常用于压力释放，以降低皮肤破裂的可能性。这项研究提供了定量的信息，在倾斜，斜倚和站立阶段的座位和背部的负荷大小。本研究的目的是表明，在各自的临床范围内，这3种方法在座椅处的力减少量会有所不同。参与者：6名健全（AB）受试者（2名男性，4名女性），中位年龄25岁，10名受试者（8名男性，2名女性）与脊髓损伤（SCI）的中位年龄为35.5 years.Methods：受试者坐在电动轮椅Tekscan压力垫放在下面的泡沫靠背和垫子。每种方法在5个位置收集数据。试验位置和方法的顺序是随机的。线性回归被用来计算归一化的座位和靠背的力量，座位和靠背的角度为每个椅子configuration.Results的关系：归一化的座位负荷有很强的线性关系与倾斜，斜倚，和站立的角度的变化为两组。在SCI受试者中，座椅负荷的最大降低发生在完全站立和完全斜倚时，而在AB受试者中，座椅负荷的最大降低发生在完全站立时。负荷线性增加，在倾斜和斜倚，线性下降，在站立为两个groups.Conclusions：站立和斜倚提供类似的座位负荷减少在各自的终端位置。站立也减少了靠背上的负荷。认识到每种方法都有临床上的优点和缺点，本研究的结果表明，倾斜，斜倚和站立系统应被视为轮椅使用者的体重转移的一种手段。
Background/Objective: Tilt and recline variable position seating systems are most commonly used for pressure relief to decrease potential for skin breakdown. This study provides quantitative information on the magnitudes of loading on the seat and back during phases of tilt, recline, and standing. The objective of this study was to show that the amount of force reduction at the seat would differ across these 3 methods within their respective clinical ranges.Participants: Six able-bodied (AB) subjects (2 men, 4 women) with a median age of 25 years, and 10 subjects (8 men, 2 women) with spinal cord injury (SCI) with a median age of 35.5 years.Methods: Subjects sat on a power wheelchair with Tekscan pressure mats placed underneath a foam backrest and cushion. Data were collected at 5 positions for each method. Order of position and method tested were randomized. Linear regressions were used to calculate the relationships of normalized seat and backrest forces to seat and backrest angles for each chair configuration.Results: Normalized seat loads had strong linear relationships with the angles of change in tilt, recline, and standing for both groups. Maximum decreases in seat load occurred at full standing and full recline in the SCI subjects and in full standing in the AB subjects. Loads linearly increased on the back during tilt and recline and linearly decreased during standing for both groups.Conclusions: Standing and recline offered similar seat load reductions at their respective terminal positions. Standing also reduced loading on the backrest. Recognizing that each method had clinical benefits and drawbacks, the results of this study indicate that tilt, recline, and standing systems should be considered as a means of weight shifting for wheelchair users.