...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of rehabilitation medicine : >COMPARISON OF ENERGY COSTS OF LEG-CYCLING WHEELCHAIRS WITH OR WITHOUT FUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL STIMULATION AND MANUAL WHEELCHAIRS FOR PATIENTS AFTER STROKE
【24h】

COMPARISON OF ENERGY COSTS OF LEG-CYCLING WHEELCHAIRS WITH OR WITHOUT FUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL STIMULATION AND MANUAL WHEELCHAIRS FOR PATIENTS AFTER STROKE

机译:卒中后有功能电刺激或无功能电刺激的例行自行车的能量成本比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Objective: To determine whether, for patients after stroke, propelling a functional electrical stimulation (FES)-assisted leg-cycling wheelchair requires less energy than propelling a manual wheelchair, and whether leg propulsion with FES has lower energy costs than without FES. Design: Within-subject comparison. Subjects: A total of 16 patients after stroke were recruited from the university hospital. Methods: Subjects propelled 2 leg-cycling wheelchairs (a FES-leg-cycling wheelchair and a leg-cycling wheelchair) and a manual wheelchair for 200 m as quickly as possible. Cardiopulmonary responses (heart rate, oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production, minute ventilation, and respiratory exchange ratio) and energy costs (physiological cost index and oxygen cost) data for each wheelchair-type were compared for each subject. Results: The cardiopulmonary responses were significantly higher, and energy costs significantly lower for propelling the FES-leg-cycling wheelchair and leg-cycling wheelchair compared with the manual wheelchair. No significant difference was found between the FES-leg-cycling wheelchair and the leg-cycling wheelchair. Conclusion: Propulsion of a leg-cycling wheelchair with or without FES yielded significantly higher cardiopulmonary responses and required less energy than propulsion of a manual wheelchair. The energy costs of cycling with FES was comparable to the energy costs of cycling without FES.
机译:目的:确定对于中风后患者而言,推动功能性电刺激(FES)辅助的腿骑自行车轮椅所需的能量是否比推动手动轮椅所需的能量少,以及具有FES的腿推动与没有FES相比具有更低的能量消耗。设计:对象内比较。受试者:中风后共从大学医院招募了16名患者。方法:受试者尽快推动2个骑脚踏车轮椅(FES-骑脚踏车轮椅和骑脚踏车轮椅)和手动轮椅200 m。对每个受试者的每种轮椅类型的心肺反应(心率,氧气消耗,二氧化碳产生,分钟通气量和呼吸交换率)和能量成本(生理成本指数和氧气成本)数据进行了比较。结果:与手动轮椅相比,推进FES腿骑轮椅和腿骑轮椅的心肺反应明显更高,能量成本也显着降低。 FES腿骑轮椅和腿骑轮椅之间没有发现显着差异。结论:与带手动轮椅的轮椅相比,带或不带FES的腿骑自行车轮椅的推动产生明显更高的心肺反应,所需能量更少。带有FES的自行车的能源成本与没有FES的自行车的能源成本相当。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号