A comparison of the energy costs with use of different types of manual wheelchair in disabled persons.

IF 0.4 Q3 Medicine Giornale italiano di medicina del lavoro ed ergonomia Pub Date : 2020-03-01
Elena Prestifilippo, Monica Panigazzi, Sara Scanarotti, Jonathan Seitanidis, Roberto Maestri, Paola Abelli, Giacomo Bazzini
{"title":"A comparison of the energy costs with use of different types of manual wheelchair in disabled persons.","authors":"Elena Prestifilippo,&nbsp;Monica Panigazzi,&nbsp;Sara Scanarotti,&nbsp;Jonathan Seitanidis,&nbsp;Roberto Maestri,&nbsp;Paola Abelli,&nbsp;Giacomo Bazzini","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Summary: </strong>The energy cost of physical activity is a well-documented field of research both in non-disabled subjects and in subjects with physical disabilities, in particular spinal cord lesions. The aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate the energy cost and subjective fatigue in disabled persons who make daily use of a manual wheelchair by comparing three different types of wheelchair (standard, lightweight and ultra-light) in order to obtain indices useful for prescribing the most effective and appropriate wheelchairaid for the individual patient. The study was carried out on 18 patients affected by paraplegia or paraparesis due to spinal cord injury at different levels. Result revealed a significant difference across the three types of wheelchair, with the energy expenditure to cover 100 m increasing from the ultra-light (lowest expenditure) to the lightweight to the standard type (highest expenditure). The differences observed in the average energy consumed to cover a distance of 100 meters with the three types of wheelchair confirm the hypothesis that it is the weight of the wheelchair chosen by the rehabilitation team together with the patient that constitutes the fundamental criterion in making such a prescription. Obviously, in making the final choice, other factors as well need to be taken into account, such as the person's age and anthropometric characteristics, the nature of the disability and prognosis, the achievable degree of autonomy, functional capacities, personal preferences, the type of use (domestic or external), accessibility, reliability and durability, esthetic features, eventual accessories available, etc.</p>","PeriodicalId":12674,"journal":{"name":"Giornale italiano di medicina del lavoro ed ergonomia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Giornale italiano di medicina del lavoro ed ergonomia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Summary: The energy cost of physical activity is a well-documented field of research both in non-disabled subjects and in subjects with physical disabilities, in particular spinal cord lesions. The aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate the energy cost and subjective fatigue in disabled persons who make daily use of a manual wheelchair by comparing three different types of wheelchair (standard, lightweight and ultra-light) in order to obtain indices useful for prescribing the most effective and appropriate wheelchairaid for the individual patient. The study was carried out on 18 patients affected by paraplegia or paraparesis due to spinal cord injury at different levels. Result revealed a significant difference across the three types of wheelchair, with the energy expenditure to cover 100 m increasing from the ultra-light (lowest expenditure) to the lightweight to the standard type (highest expenditure). The differences observed in the average energy consumed to cover a distance of 100 meters with the three types of wheelchair confirm the hypothesis that it is the weight of the wheelchair chosen by the rehabilitation team together with the patient that constitutes the fundamental criterion in making such a prescription. Obviously, in making the final choice, other factors as well need to be taken into account, such as the person's age and anthropometric characteristics, the nature of the disability and prognosis, the achievable degree of autonomy, functional capacities, personal preferences, the type of use (domestic or external), accessibility, reliability and durability, esthetic features, eventual accessories available, etc.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
残疾人使用不同类型手动轮椅的能源成本比较。
摘要:体力活动的能量消耗是一个有充分记录的研究领域,无论是在非残疾受试者还是在身体残疾受试者中,特别是在脊髓病变中。因此,本研究的目的是通过比较三种不同类型的轮椅(标准轮椅、轻型轮椅和超轻型轮椅)来调查日常使用手动轮椅的残疾人的能量成本和主观疲劳,以获得对个体患者处方最有效和最合适的轮椅辅助工具有用的指标。本研究对18例不同程度脊髓损伤所致截瘫或截瘫患者进行了研究。结果显示,三种类型的轮椅之间存在显著差异,100米的能量消耗从超轻型(最低消耗)到轻型再到标准型(最高消耗)增加。这三种轮椅行走100米所消耗的平均能量的差异,证实了康复团队与患者共同选择轮椅的重量是制定此类处方的基本标准。显然,在做出最终选择时,还需要考虑其他因素,如患者的年龄和人体特征、残疾的性质和预后、可实现的自主程度、功能能力、个人偏好、使用类型(国内或外部)、可及性、可靠性和耐用性、美学特征、最终可用的配件等。
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
Giornale italiano di medicina del lavoro ed ergonomia
Giornale italiano di medicina del lavoro ed ergonomia PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Needle stick injuries among nurses in Italy: a review. High altitude underground mining. Acclimatization and possible toxicological risks. Nitrous oxide occupational exposure in conscious sedation procedures in endoscopic ambulatories: a pilot retrospective observational study in an Italian hospital. [Self-compassion and secondary traumatization: results of an observational study carried out in Covid hospital ordinary units]. Background Music in elderly nursing home: a feasibility explorative study.
×
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