Biomechanical comparison of two racing wheelchair propulsion techniques

2001 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 476-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOHN W. CHOW ◽  
TIM A. MILLIKAN ◽  
LES G. CARLTON ◽  
MARTY I. MORSE ◽  
WOEN-SIK CHAE
Author(s):  
Rick de Klerk ◽  
Vera Velhorst ◽  
Dirkjan (H.E.J.) Veeger ◽  
Lucas H. V. van der Woude ◽  
Riemer J. K. Vegter

Abstract Background Handrim wheelchair propulsion is often assessed in the laboratory on treadmills (TM) or ergometers (WE), under the assumption that they relate to regular overground (OG) propulsion. However, little is known about the agreement of data obtained from TM, WE, and OG propulsion under standardized conditions. The current study aimed to standardize velocity and power output among these three modalities to consequently compare obtained physiological and biomechanical outcome parameters. Methods Seventeen able-bodied participants performed two submaximal practice sessions before taking part in a measurement session consisting of 3 × 4 min of submaximal wheelchair propulsion in each of the different modalities. Power output and speed for TM and WE propulsion were matched with OG propulsion, making them (mechanically) as equal as possible. Physiological data and propulsion kinetics were recorded with a spirometer and a 3D measurement wheel, respectively. Results Agreement among conditions was moderate to good for most outcome variables. However, heart rate was significantly higher in OG propulsion than in the TM condition. Push time and contact angle were smaller and fraction of effective force was higher on the WE when compared to OG/TM propulsion. Participants used a larger cycle time and more negative work per cycle in the OG condition. A continuous analysis using statistical parametric mapping showed a lower torque profile in the start of the push phase for TM propulsion versus OG/WE propulsion. Total force was higher during the start of the push phase for the OG conditions when compared to TM/WE propulsion. Conclusions Physiological and biomechanical outcomes in general are similar, but possible differences between modalities exist, even after controlling for power output using conventional techniques. Further efforts towards increasing the ecological validity of lab-based equipment is advised and the possible impact of these differences -if at all- in (clinical) practice should be evaluated.


2013 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Mason ◽  
John Lenton ◽  
Christof Leicht ◽  
Victoria Goosey-Tolfrey

2009 ◽  
Vol 30 (02) ◽  
pp. 150-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelby E. Jarrell ◽  
John R. Owen ◽  
Jennifer S. Wayne ◽  
Robert S. Adelaar

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (02) ◽  
pp. 140-146
Author(s):  
M. R. Edwards ◽  
S. P. James ◽  
W. S. Dernell ◽  
R. J. Scott ◽  
A. M. Bachand ◽  
...  

SummaryThe biomechanical characteristics of 1.2 mm diameter allogeneic cortical bone pins harvested from the canine tibia were evaluated and compared to 1.1 mm diameter stainless steel pins and 1.3 mm diameter polydioxanone (PDS) pins using impact testing and four-point bending. The biomechanical performance of allogeneic cortical bone pins using impact testing was uniform with no significant differences between sites, side, and gender. In four-point bending, cortical bone pins harvested from the left tibia (204.8 ± 77.4 N/mm) were significantly stiffer than the right tibia (123.7 ± 54.4 N/mm, P=0.0001). The site of bone pin harvest also had a significant effect on stiffness, but this was dependent on interactions with gender and side. Site C in male dogs had the highest mean stiffness in the left tibia (224.4 ± 40.4 N/mm), but lowest stiffness in the right tibia (84.9 ± 24.2 N/mm). Site A in female dogs had the highest mean stiffness in the left tibia (344.9 ± 117.4 N/mm), but lowest stiffness in the right tibia (60.8 ± 3.7 N/mm). The raw and adjusted bending properties of 1.2 mm cortical bone pins were significantly better than 1.3 mm PDS pins, but significantly worse than 1.1 mm stainless steel pins (P<0.0001). In conclusion, cortical bone pins may be suitable as an implant for fracture fixation based on initial biomechanical comparison to stainless steel and PDS pins used in clinical practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document