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: Comparison of rolling resistance, propulsion technique and physiological demands between a rigid, folding and hybrid manual wheelchair frame.
    Author: Braaksma J, Vegter RJK, Houdijk H, de Groot S.
    Journal: Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol; 2024 Jun 25; ():1-10. PubMed ID: 38916055.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: When selecting a manual wheelchair frame, the choice between rigid and folding frames carries significant implications. Traditional folding frames are expected to have more rolling resistance and power dissipation caused by frame deformation, while they are more convenient for transportation, such as in a car. A new hybrid frame, designed to be more rigid, aims to minimize power dissipation while still retaining foldability. AIM: This study aimed to assess rolling resistance, power output, propulsion technique and physiological demands of handrim wheelchair propulsion across three different frames: a rigid frame, a hybrid frame and a conventional folding frame. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight able-bodied participants performed coast-down tests using inertial measurement units to determine rolling resistance. Subsequently, four-minute submaximal exercise block under steady-state conditions at 1.11 m/s were performed on a wheelchair ergometer (n = 24) or treadmill (n = 24) to determine power output, propulsion technique and physiological demands. RESULTS: Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that the hybrid frame exhibited the lowest rolling resistance (7.0 ± 1.5N, p ≤ 0.001) and required less power output (8.3 ± 1.0W, p ≤ 0.001) at a given speed, compared to both the folding (9.3 ± 2.2N, 10.8 ± 1.4W) and rigid frame (8.0 ± 1.9N, 9.4 ± 1.6W). Subsequently, this resulted in significantly lower applied forces and push frequency for the hybrid frame. The folding frame had the highest energy expenditure (hybrid: 223 ± 44 W, rigid: 234 ± 51 W, folding: 240 ± 46 W, p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: The hybrid frame demonstrated to be a biomechanically and physiologically beneficial solution compared to the folding frame, exhibiting lower rolling resistance, reduced power output, and consequently minimizing force application and push frequency, all while retaining its folding mechanism. A hybrid frame, developed as an intermediary solution between a folding and rigid frame, presents reduced biomechanical and physiological demands compared to a folding frame. This is attributed to its decreased need for propulsive forces and energy expenditure, resulting from lower rolling resistanceDespite the hybrid frame offering lower rolling resistance and thus requiring less propulsive force as the rigid frame, it experiences internal power losses due to movement between its interconnected pieces. Consequently, the net mechanical efficiency of the hybrid frame is inferior to that of the rigid frame, resulting in a similar energy expenditure between the hybrid and rigid frames.The hybrid frame emerges as a potentially more advantageous option than a conventional folding frame, as it diminishes biomechanical and physiological strain while retaining a folding mechanism, to ensure easy transportation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]