...
首页> 外文期刊>Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation >Comparison of metabolic cost, performance, and efficiency of propulsion using an ergonomic hand drive mechanism and a conventional manual wheelchair
【24h】

Comparison of metabolic cost, performance, and efficiency of propulsion using an ergonomic hand drive mechanism and a conventional manual wheelchair

机译:使用人体工程学的手驱动机构和传统的手动轮椅比较代谢成本,性能和推进效率

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective To compare the metabolic cost (oxygen uptake per unit time [V?o2 consumption], heart rate, and number of pushes), performance (velocity and distance traveled), and efficiency (oxygen uptake per distance traveled [Vo2 efficiency]) of propulsion using a novel ergonomic hand drive mechanism (EHDM) and a conventional manual wheelchair (CMW). Design Repeated-measures crossover design. Setting Semicircular track. Participants Adult full-time manual wheelchair users with spinal cord injuries (N=12; mean age ± SD, 38.8±12.4y; mean body mass ± SD, 73.7±13.3kg; mean height ± SD, 173.6±11.1cm) who were medically and functionally stable and at least 6 months postinjury. Intervention Participants propelled themselves for 3.5 minutes at a self-selected pace in a CMW and in the same chair fitted with the EHDM. Main Outcome Measures Velocity, distance traveled, number of pushes, V?o2 consumption, Vo 2 efficiency, and heart rate were compared by wheelchair condition for the last 30 seconds of each trial using paired t tests (α=.01). Results The CMW condition resulted in more distance traveled (33.6±10.8m vs 22.4±7.8m; P=.001), greater velocity (1.12±0.4m/s vs.75±.30m/s; P=.001), and better Vo2 efficiency (.10±.03mL·kg-1·m-1 vs.15±.03mL·kg-1·m-1; P.001) than the EHDM condition, respectively. No significant differences were found between the 2 conditions for number of pushes (27.5±5.7 vs 25.7±5.4; P=.366), V?o2 consumption (6.43±1.9mL·kg -1·min-1 vs 6.19±1.7mL·kg -1·min-1; P=.573), or heart rate (100.5±14.5 beats per minute vs 97.4±20.2 beats per minute; P=.42). Conclusions The results demonstrate that metabolic costs did not differ significantly; however, performance and efficiency were sacrificed with the EHDM. Modifications to the EHDM (eg, addition of gearing) could rectify the performance and efficiency decrements while maintaining similar metabolic costs. Although not an ideal technology, the EHDM can be considered as an alternative mode of mobility by wheelchair users and rehabilitation specialists.
机译:目的比较代谢物的代谢成本(每单位时间的摄氧量[V2的消耗量],心率和按压次数),性能(速度和行进的距离)和效率(每行进的摄氧量[Vo2的效率])。使用新型人体工程学手驱动机构(EHDM)和常规手动轮椅(CMW)进行推进。设计重复测量交叉设计。设置半圆轨道。参与者脊髓损伤的成人全职手动轮椅使用者(N = 12;平均年龄±SD,38.8±12.4y;平均体重±SD,73.7±13.3kg;平均身高±SD,173.6±11.1cm)身体和功能稳定,受伤后至少6个月。干预参与者以自己选择的速度在CMW和装有EHDM的同一把椅子上推进3.5分钟。主要结果测量在每项试验的最后30秒,使用成对t检验(α= .01),通过轮椅状况比较了速度,行进距离,推动次数,V 2消耗,Vo 2效率和心率。结果CMW条件导致更长的行进距离(33.6±10.8m vs 22.4±7.8m; P = .001),更大的速度(1.12±0.4m / s vs.75±.30m / s; P = .001),与EHDM条件相比,分别具有更好的Vo2效率(.10±.03mL·kg-1·m-1和15±.03mL·kg-1·m-1; P <.001)。推压次数(27.5±5.7 vs 25.7±5.4; P = .366),V2O消耗量(6.43±1.9mL·kg -1·min-1与6.19±1.7mL)的两种条件之间没有发现显着差异·kg -1·min-1; P = .573)或心率(每分钟100.5±14.5搏动与每分钟97.4±20.2搏动; P = .42)。结论结果表明,代谢成本没有显着差异。但是,EHDM牺牲了性能和效率。对EHDM的修改(例如增加传动装置)可以纠正性能和效率的下降,同时保持相似的代谢成本。尽管不是理想的技术,但EHDM可以被轮椅使用者和康复专家视为替代性出行方式。

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