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

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 REHABILITATION Disability and Rehabilitation-Assistive Technology Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub 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":"1094-1103"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","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":"2024/11/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","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
Understanding knowledge and skills requirements for healthcare professionals to enable safe and effective use of physically assistive robotics. Higher education experts' perspectives on incorporating Universal Design (UD) and accessibility into Higher Education (HE) curricula. Effectiveness of the mobile learning HiSense Taxi App for improving taxi drivers' services for individuals with disabilities: a randomized controlled trial. Analysis of the effect of path cross slope on manual wheelchair propulsion. Impact of an omni-directional accessible design on caregiver's wheelchair operability.
×
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:604180095
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