比较刚性、折叠和混合手动轮椅框架的滚动阻力、推进技术和生理需求。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 REHABILITATION
Jelmer Braaksma, Riemer J K Vegter, Han Houdijk, Sonja de Groot
{"title":"比较刚性、折叠和混合手动轮椅框架的滚动阻力、推进技术和生理需求。","authors":"Jelmer Braaksma, Riemer J K Vegter, Han Houdijk, Sonja de Groot","doi":"10.1080/17483107.2024.2365270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When selecting a manual wheelchair frame, the choice between rigid and folding frames carries significant implications. Traditional folding frames are expected to have more rolling resistance and power dissipation caused by frame deformation, while they are more convenient for transportation, such as in a car. A new hybrid frame, designed to be more rigid, aims to minimize power dissipation while still retaining foldability.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to assess rolling resistance, power output, propulsion technique and physiological demands of handrim wheelchair propulsion across three different frames: a rigid frame, a hybrid frame and a conventional folding frame.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Forty-eight able-bodied participants performed coast-down tests using inertial measurement units to determine rolling resistance. Subsequently, four-minute submaximal exercise block under steady-state conditions at 1.11 m/s were performed on a wheelchair ergometer (<i>n</i> = 24) or treadmill (<i>n</i> = 24) to determine power output, propulsion technique and physiological demands.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that the hybrid frame exhibited the lowest rolling resistance (7.0 ± 1.5N, <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001) and required less power output (8.3 ± 1.0W, <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001) at a given speed, compared to both the folding (9.3 ± 2.2N, 10.8 ± 1.4W) and rigid frame (8.0 ± 1.9N, 9.4 ± 1.6W). Subsequently, this resulted in significantly lower applied forces and push frequency for the hybrid frame. The folding frame had the highest energy expenditure (hybrid: 223 ± 44 W, rigid: 234 ± 51 W, folding: 240 ± 46 W, <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The hybrid frame demonstrated to be a biomechanically and physiologically beneficial solution compared to the folding frame, exhibiting lower rolling resistance, reduced power output, and consequently minimizing force application and push frequency, all while retaining its folding mechanism.</p>","PeriodicalId":47806,"journal":{"name":"Disability and Rehabilitation-Assistive Technology","volume":" ","pages":"222-231"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of rolling resistance, propulsion technique and physiological demands between a rigid, folding and hybrid manual wheelchair frame.\",\"authors\":\"Jelmer Braaksma, Riemer J K Vegter, Han Houdijk, Sonja de Groot\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17483107.2024.2365270\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When selecting a manual wheelchair frame, the choice between rigid and folding frames carries significant implications. Traditional folding frames are expected to have more rolling resistance and power dissipation caused by frame deformation, while they are more convenient for transportation, such as in a car. A new hybrid frame, designed to be more rigid, aims to minimize power dissipation while still retaining foldability.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to assess rolling resistance, power output, propulsion technique and physiological demands of handrim wheelchair propulsion across three different frames: a rigid frame, a hybrid frame and a conventional folding frame.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Forty-eight able-bodied participants performed coast-down tests using inertial measurement units to determine rolling resistance. Subsequently, four-minute submaximal exercise block under steady-state conditions at 1.11 m/s were performed on a wheelchair ergometer (<i>n</i> = 24) or treadmill (<i>n</i> = 24) to determine power output, propulsion technique and physiological demands.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that the hybrid frame exhibited the lowest rolling resistance (7.0 ± 1.5N, <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001) and required less power output (8.3 ± 1.0W, <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001) at a given speed, compared to both the folding (9.3 ± 2.2N, 10.8 ± 1.4W) and rigid frame (8.0 ± 1.9N, 9.4 ± 1.6W). Subsequently, this resulted in significantly lower applied forces and push frequency for the hybrid frame. The folding frame had the highest energy expenditure (hybrid: 223 ± 44 W, rigid: 234 ± 51 W, folding: 240 ± 46 W, <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The hybrid frame demonstrated to be a biomechanically and physiologically beneficial solution compared to the folding frame, exhibiting lower rolling resistance, reduced power output, and consequently minimizing force application and push frequency, all while retaining its folding mechanism.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Disability and Rehabilitation-Assistive Technology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"222-231\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"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/10.1080/17483107.2024.2365270\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability and Rehabilitation-Assistive Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2024.2365270","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在选择手动轮椅车架时,刚性车架和折叠式车架之间的选择具有重要意义。传统的折叠式轮椅架预计会有更大的滚动阻力和因轮椅架变形而造成的动力损耗,但它们更便于运输,如在汽车中运输。目的:本研究旨在评估三种不同车架(刚性车架、混合车架和传统折叠式车架)的滚动阻力、动力输出、推进技术和手轮轮椅推进的生理需求:48 名健全参与者使用惯性测量装置进行了滑行测试,以确定滚动阻力。随后,在轮椅测力计(n = 24)或跑步机(n = 24)上以 1.11 米/秒的速度进行了四分钟稳态条件下的次极限运动,以确定输出功率、推进技术和生理需求:重复测量方差分析显示,与折叠式车架(9.3±2.2N,10.8±1.4W)和刚性车架(8.0±1.9N,9.4±1.6W)相比,混合式车架的滚动阻力最小(7.0±1.5N,p≤0.001),在给定速度下所需输出功率较小(8.3±1.0W,p≤0.001)。因此,混合车架的作用力和推动频率明显较低。折叠式框架的能量消耗最高(混合式:223 ± 44 W,刚性:234 ± 51 W,折叠式:240 ± 46 W,p ≤ 0.001):与折叠式车架相比,混合式车架在生物力学和生理学上都是一种有益的解决方案,在保留其折叠机制的同时,还能降低滚动阻力,减少动力输出,从而最大限度地减少施力和推动频率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of rolling resistance, propulsion technique and physiological demands between a rigid, folding and hybrid manual wheelchair frame.

Background: When selecting a manual wheelchair frame, the choice between rigid and folding frames carries significant implications. Traditional folding frames are expected to have more rolling resistance and power dissipation caused by frame deformation, while they are more convenient for transportation, such as in a car. A new hybrid frame, designed to be more rigid, aims to minimize power dissipation while still retaining foldability.

Aim: This study aimed to assess rolling resistance, power output, propulsion technique and physiological demands of handrim wheelchair propulsion across three different frames: a rigid frame, a hybrid frame and a conventional folding frame.

Materials and methods: Forty-eight able-bodied participants performed coast-down tests using inertial measurement units to determine rolling resistance. Subsequently, four-minute submaximal exercise block under steady-state conditions at 1.11 m/s were performed on a wheelchair ergometer (n = 24) or treadmill (n = 24) to determine power output, propulsion technique and physiological demands.

Results: Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that the hybrid frame exhibited the lowest rolling resistance (7.0 ± 1.5N, p ≤ 0.001) and required less power output (8.3 ± 1.0W, p ≤ 0.001) at a given speed, compared to both the folding (9.3 ± 2.2N, 10.8 ± 1.4W) and rigid frame (8.0 ± 1.9N, 9.4 ± 1.6W). Subsequently, this resulted in significantly lower applied forces and push frequency for the hybrid frame. The folding frame had the highest energy expenditure (hybrid: 223 ± 44 W, rigid: 234 ± 51 W, folding: 240 ± 46 W, p ≤ 0.001).

Conclusion: The hybrid frame demonstrated to be a biomechanically and physiologically beneficial solution compared to the folding frame, exhibiting lower rolling resistance, reduced power output, and consequently minimizing force application and push frequency, all while retaining its folding mechanism.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
13.60%
发文量
128
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信