Hand rim configuration: effects on physical strain and technique in unimpaired subjects?

• Published in: Medical engineering & physics Vol. 25; no. 9; pp. 765 - 774
• Main Authors: van der Woude, L.H.V, Formanoy, M, de Groot, S
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Elsevier Ltd 01.11.2003; Elsevier Science
• Subjects: Adult; Biological and medical sciences; Energy Transfer - physiology; Equipment Design; Equipment Failure Analysis; Ergonomics - methods; Exercise Test; Force production; Hand - physiology; Hand rim; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Movement - physiology; Non-wheelchair users; Oxygen Consumption - physiology; Patient Satisfaction; Physical Exertion - physiology; Physical strain; Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects); Stress, Mechanical; Task Performance and Analysis; Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments. Material. Instrumentation; Wheelchairs; Force production; Hand rim; Non-wheelchair users; Physical strain; Biomedical engineering
• ISSN: 1350-4533; 1873-4030
• DOI: 10.1016/S1350-4533(03)00102-4

Objective: Hand rim wheelchair propulsion is inefficient and physically straining. To evaluate the possibly advantageous role in this respect of three different prototype hand rim configurations (a rubber foam-coated cylindrical (II) hand rim and two profiled rubber foam-coated hand rims (wide and narrow: III, IV)), a group of 10 unimpaired subjects conducted four submaximal discontinuous wheelchair exercise tests on a computer-controlled wheelchair ergometer, thus allowing a comparison with a standard hand rim (chromium-plated round hand rim (I)). Methods: Apart from physiological measures (oxygen uptake, heart rate (HR), ventilation, mechanical efficiency (ME)), a subjective score for the rating of each of the hand rims was determined, as well as characteristics of the force application in the propulsion phase during each test condition. Timing parameters of the push and recovery phase were determined. Each exercise test was conducted with one of the four hand rim configurations in a counter-balanced order. Results: Analysis of variance with repeated measures (hand rim configuration, power output) revealed no significant effects ( P>0.05) on any of the physiological parameters and force application characteristics for the main factor ‘hand rim configuration’. Only the subjective score (scale 0–10) for rating of the hand rims proved significantly different between the round rubber (7.5±0.53) coated hand rim—receiving the highest score—versus the narrow rubber-coated flat profiled hand rim (5.5±1.72). Discussion: In this subject group and under the selected tasks and submaximal conditions of wheelchair propulsion, the studied hand rim configurations did not introduce critical shifts in the technique of (de-)coupling and power production in the push phase. As a consequence, no systematic shifts in ME are found among the different hand rim configurations. It is suggested that the biological constraints of the task overrule the possible effects of small design variations of the different hand rim configurations within the studied subject group and under the limited test conditions. The hand rim design characteristics may however be much more critical in (1) experienced wheelchair users, (2) especially those subjects with a limited hand–arm and/or trunk function and/or (3) under much more extreme conditions of daily wheelchair ambulation (i.e. turning, stopping/starting, negotiating a slope) or during peak performance. These issues clearly require continued future research. As such, the current results can be viewed as preliminary results only.