These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative study of pressure distribution at the user-cushion interface with different cushions in a population with spinal cord injury.
    Author: Gil-Agudo A, De la Peña-González A, Del Ama-Espinosa A, Pérez-Rizo E, Díaz-Domínguez E, Sánchez-Ramos A.
    Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2009 Aug; 24(7):558-63. PubMed ID: 19447532.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Few studies have offered comparative information on the mechanical characteristics of different wheelchair seat cushions. The objective of the present study was to compare the benefits of the wheelchair seat cushions most frequently used in a population of patients with spinal cord injury in terms of pressure distribution and contact surface at the user-cushion interface. METHODS: Each one of 48 patients with spinal cord injury was seated in his or her own wheelchair on the four models of cushions analyzed (low-profile air, high-profile air, dual-compartment air, and gel and firm foam), which were presented in randomized order. The pressure distribution readings and support surface area of the user-cushion interface were obtained with a matrix of piezocapacitive sensors. FINDINGS: The dual-compartment air cushion yielded lower readings for all pressure parameters analyzed (P(max), P(mean), P(sd), and P(isch)) than the other three cushion models (P<0.05). The best surface parameter results (S(tot), S>60 and %S>60) also were obtained with the dual-compartment air cushion (P<0.05). INTERPRETATION: In the sample analyzed, the dual-compartment air cushion was the cushion with the best pressure distribution and largest contact surface of the user-cushion interface compared to the other three cushions studied.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]