Sitting pressure during wheelchair propulsion and handcycling: effects of backrest angle, movement intensity and cushion type.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 REHABILITATION Disability and Rehabilitation-Assistive Technology Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1080/17483107.2024.2434912
Thom Snoek, Annelaura Haarler, Ludwine van Orsouw, Thomas W J Janssen, Sonja de Groot, Ingrid Kouwijzer
{"title":"Sitting pressure during wheelchair propulsion and handcycling: effects of backrest angle, movement intensity and cushion type.","authors":"Thom Snoek, Annelaura Haarler, Ludwine van Orsouw, Thomas W J Janssen, Sonja de Groot, Ingrid Kouwijzer","doi":"10.1080/17483107.2024.2434912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> The main aim of this study was to compare sitting pressure (peak pressure index (PPI) and peak pressure gradient (PPG)) between a daily wheelchair and fixed-frame handcycle, thereby assessing the effect of handcycle backrest angle, movement intensity and cushion type.</p><p><p><b>Materials and methods:</b> Twenty able-bodied participants performed static and dynamic (two intensities) tests in a wheelchair and handcycle. A honeycomb wheelchair cushion and standard foam handcycle cushion were used. Handcycle backrest angles were 45° and 60°. The PPI and PPG at the sacro-coccygeal (SC) and ischial tuberosity (IT) regions were determined with a pressure mat.</p><p><p><b>Results:</b> PPI at the IT-region was higher in the 60° handcycle condition than in the wheelchair (<i>p</i> = 0.04), while PPG at the IT-region did not differ significantly between the wheelchair and handcycle conditions (<i>p</i> > 0.05). PPI and PPG were higher at the 45° handcycle SC-region compared to the wheelchair IT-region (<i>p</i> < 0.03). PPI and PPG at the IT-region were higher with the 60° than with the 45° backrest angle (<i>p</i> < 0.01), while at the SC-region PPI was higher with the 45° backrest angle (<i>p</i> = 0.047). No clear influence of movement intensity was found. PPI and PPG at the IT-region and PPI of the SC-region in the handcycle were significantly lower with the wheelchair cushion than with the handcycle cushion (<i>p</i> < 0.01).</p><p><p><b>Conclusion:</b> Overall, sitting pressure was higher in the handcycle compared to the daily wheelchair. For handcyclists using an upright position, it is recommended to use a cushion designed to redistribute pressure, thereby reducing internal tissue pressure and shear.</p>","PeriodicalId":47806,"journal":{"name":"Disability and Rehabilitation-Assistive Technology","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability and Rehabilitation-Assistive Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2024.2434912","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The main aim of this study was to compare sitting pressure (peak pressure index (PPI) and peak pressure gradient (PPG)) between a daily wheelchair and fixed-frame handcycle, thereby assessing the effect of handcycle backrest angle, movement intensity and cushion type.

Materials and methods: Twenty able-bodied participants performed static and dynamic (two intensities) tests in a wheelchair and handcycle. A honeycomb wheelchair cushion and standard foam handcycle cushion were used. Handcycle backrest angles were 45° and 60°. The PPI and PPG at the sacro-coccygeal (SC) and ischial tuberosity (IT) regions were determined with a pressure mat.

Results: PPI at the IT-region was higher in the 60° handcycle condition than in the wheelchair (p = 0.04), while PPG at the IT-region did not differ significantly between the wheelchair and handcycle conditions (p > 0.05). PPI and PPG were higher at the 45° handcycle SC-region compared to the wheelchair IT-region (p < 0.03). PPI and PPG at the IT-region were higher with the 60° than with the 45° backrest angle (p < 0.01), while at the SC-region PPI was higher with the 45° backrest angle (p = 0.047). No clear influence of movement intensity was found. PPI and PPG at the IT-region and PPI of the SC-region in the handcycle were significantly lower with the wheelchair cushion than with the handcycle cushion (p < 0.01).

Conclusion: Overall, sitting pressure was higher in the handcycle compared to the daily wheelchair. For handcyclists using an upright position, it is recommended to use a cushion designed to redistribute pressure, thereby reducing internal tissue pressure and shear.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
轮椅推进和骑自行车时的坐压:靠背角度、运动强度和坐垫类型的影响。
目的:本研究的主要目的是比较日常轮椅和固定框架手扶车坐位压力(峰值压力指数(PPI)和峰值压力梯度(PPG)),从而评估手扶角度、运动强度和坐垫类型对坐位压力的影响。材料和方法:20名身体健全的参与者在轮椅和自行车上进行静态和动态(两种强度)测试。采用蜂窝状轮椅坐垫和标准泡沫自行车坐垫。手扶靠背角度分别为45°和60°。结果:60°手扶条件下骶尾骨(SC)和坐骨结节(IT)区域PPI和PPG高于轮椅(p = 0.04),而轮椅和手扶条件下IT区域PPG差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。45°手扶自行车sc区域PPI和PPG高于轮椅it区域(p p p = 0.047)。运动强度没有明显的影响。轮椅坐垫组骑自行车时,it区PPI和PPG、sc区PPI显著低于骑自行车组(p结论:总体而言,骑自行车时的坐压高于日常轮椅组。对于使用直立姿势的手骑者,建议使用旨在重新分配压力的垫子,从而减少内部组织的压力和剪切。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
13.60%
发文量
128
期刊最新文献
Tools and devices for telerehabilitation in pediatric and adult cystic fibrosis patients: a scoping review. Design priorities for an at-home upper limb stroke rehabilitation robot. Bridging gaps in technology adoption for disabilities. Estimating power wheelchair electronics lifespan based on real-world data. Tiny drivers, big decisions: parental perceptions and experiences of power mobility device trials for young children with cerebral palsy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1