The interaction between wheelchair configuration and wheeling performance in wheelchair tennis: a narrative review

The number of wheelchair tennis players is rising internationally, yet from a scientific perspective little is known about wheelchair tennis performance. Wheelchair tennis is more complex compared to other wheelchair court sports, due to the wheelchair/racket interaction. The purpose of this narrative review was to gain insight into the influence of wheelchair configuration, i.e., the individual set-up of a wheelchair, on wheelchair tennis performance, more specifically on wheelchair mobility performance and propulsion technique. Wheelchair propulsion while holding a racket has had little attention in both the wheelchair mobility performance and wheelchair propulsion technique area. It is shown that the propulsion technique and wheelchair mobility performance are negatively affected by the racket. Based on the current literature, the influence of wheelchair configuration on wheeling performance in wheelchair tennis can mainly be described from a broader wheelchair court sport perspective, due to the lack of specific publications about wheelchair tennis. In the future more research should be conducted on wheeling performance and wheelchair configuration in wheelchair tennis, to attain a more proper scientific foundation for optimising wheelchair tennis performance.

Reinventing the wheel for a manual wheelchair

PURPOSE

Standard manual wheelchairs (MWCs) are inefficient and pushrim propulsion may cause progressive damage and pain to the user's arms. We describe a wheel for a MWC with a novel propulsion mechanism.

METHODS

The wheel has two modes of operation called "Standard" mode and "Run" mode. In Run mode, the wheelchair is propelled forward by pushing a compliant handle forward and then pulling it back, both strokes contributing to forward propulsion. We report the propulsive force and preliminary testing on a rough outdoor circuit by three able-bodied participants.

RESULTS

In Run mode, the peak applied force is reduced to 30% and the maximum force gradient is reduced to 10% of that for standard pushrim propulsion, for the same work output. The travel time for the 1.06 km outdoor circuit is about 60% of that for a brisk walk and about 40% of that for pushrim propulsion. At a propulsion speed of 1 m/s, the cardiovascular effort in Run mode is 56% of that for pushrim propulsion. Automatic hill-hold in Run mode improves safety when ascending slopes. The mechanism has three gears so that it can be used by people with widely varying strength and fitness. Folding the handle away converts the operation to Standard mode with the conventional pushrim propulsion, supplemented by three gears.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increased weight, width and friction, the bimodal geared wheels facilitate wheelchair travel on challenging paths. This may bring significant improvement to the quality of life of MWC users.

Toward a Standardized and Individualized Laboratory-Based Protocol for Wheelchair-Specific Exercise Capacity Testing in Wheelchair Athletes: A Scoping Review

ABSTRACT

Previous studies on handrim wheelchair-specific (an)aerobic exercise capacity in wheelchair athletes have used a diversity of participants, equipment, and protocols. Therefore, test results are difficult to compare among studies. The first aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the populations studied, the equipment and protocols used, and the reported outcomes from all laboratory-based studies on wheelchair-specific exercise capacity in wheelchair athletes. The second aim is to synthesize these findings into a standardized, yet individualized protocol. A scoping literature search resulted in 10 anaerobic and 38 aerobic protocols. A large variety in equipment, protocol design, and reported outcomes was found. Studies that systematically investigated the influence of protocol features are lacking, which makes it difficult to interpret and compare test outcomes among the heterogeneous group of wheelchair athletes. Protocol design was often dependent on a priori participant knowledge. However, specific guidelines for individualization were missing. However, the common protocol features of the different studies were united into guidelines that could be followed when performing standardized and individualized wheelchair-specific exercise capacity tests in wheelchair athletes. Together with guidelines regarding reporting of participant characteristics, used equipment, and outcome measures, we hope to work toward more international agreement in future testing.

A 2D lightweight instrumented wheel for assessing wheelchair functionality/activity

Introduction

Force measurement wheels are essential instruments for analysing manual wheelchair propulsion. Existing solutions are heavy and bulky, influence propulsion biomechanics, and are limited to confined laboratory environments. In this paper, a novel design for a compact and lightweight measurement wheel is presented and statically validated.

Methods

Four connectors between the push-rim and wheel-rim doubled as force sensors to allow the calculation of tangential and radial forces as well as the point of force application. For validation, increasing weights were hung on the push-rim at known positions. Resulting values were compared against pre-determined force components.

Results

The implemented prototype weighed 2.1 kg and was able to transmit signals to a mobile recording device at 140 Hz. Errors in forces at locations of propulsive pushes were in the range up to ±3.1 N but higher at the frontal extreme. Tangential force components were most accurate.

Conclusion

The principle of instrumenting the joints between push-rim and wheel-rim shows promise for assessing wheelchair propulsion in daily life.

Evaluation of a standardized test protocol to measure wheelchair-specific anaerobic and aerobic exercise capacity in healthy novices on an instrumented roller ergometer

This study aims to evaluate whether a test protocol with standardized and individualized resistance settings leads to valid wheelchair Wingate tests (WAnT) and graded exercise tests (GXT) in healthy novices. Twenty able-bodied individuals (10M/10F, age 23 ± 2 years, body mass 72 ± 11 kg) performed an isometric strength test, sprint test, WAnT and GXT on a wheelchair ergometer. Using a previously developed set of regression equations, individuals’ isometric strength outcome was used to estimate the WAnT result (P30_est), from which an effective individual WAnT resistance was derived. The subsequently measured WAnT outcome (P30_meas) was used to estimate the GXT outcome (POpeak_est) and to scale the individual GXT resistance steps. Estimated and measured outcomes were compared. The WAnT protocol was considered valid when maximal velocity did not exceed 3 m·s^-1; the GXT protocol was considered valid when test duration was 8–12 min. P30_est did not significantly differ from P30_meas, while one participant did not have a valid WanT, as maximal velocity exceeded 3 m·s^-1. POpeak_est was 10% higher than POpeak_meas, and six participants did not reach a valid GXT: five participants had a test duration under 8 min and one participant over 12 min. The isometric strength test can be used to individually scale the WAnT protocol. The WAnT outcome scaled the protocol for the GXT less accurately, resulting in mostly shorter-than-desired test durations. In conclusion, the evaluated standardized and individualized test protocol was valid for the WAnT but less valid for the GXT among a group of novices. Before implementing the standardized individual test protocol on a broader scale, e.g. among paralympic athletes, it should be evaluated among different athletic wheelchair-dependent populations.

How Was Studied the Effect of Manual Wheelchair Configuration on Propulsion Biomechanics: A Systematic Review on Methodologies

Background

For both sports and everyday use, finding the optimal manual wheelchair (MWC) configuration can improve a user's propulsion biomechanics. Many studies have already investigated the effect of changes in MWC configuration but comparing their results is challenging due to the differences in experimental methodologies between articles.

Purpose

The present systematic review aims at offering an in-depth analysis of the methodologies used to study the impact of MWC configuration on propulsion biomechanics, and ultimately providing the community with recommendations for future research.

Methods

The reviewing process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart on two databases (Scopus and PubMed) in March 2022.

Results

Forty-five articles were included, and the results highlighted the multiplicity of methodologies regarding different experimental aspects, including propulsion environment, experimental task, or measurement systems, for example. More importantly, descriptions of MWC configurations and their modifications differed significantly between studies and led to a lack of critical information in many cases.

Discussion

Studying the effect of MWC configuration on propulsion requires recommendations that must be clarified: (1) the formalism chosen to describe MWC configuration (absolute or relative) should be consistent with the type of study conducted and should be documented enough to allow for switching to the other formalism; (2) the tested MWC characteristics and initial configuration, allowing the reproduction or comparison in future studies, should be properly reported; (3) the bias induced by the experimental situation on the measured data must be considered when drawing conclusions and therefore experimental conditions such as propulsion speed or the effect of the instrumentation should be reported.

Conclusion

Overall, future studies will need standardization to be able to follow the listed recommendations, both to describe MWC configuration and mechanical properties in a clear way and to choose the experimental conditions best suited to their objectives.

Performance, asymmetry and biomechanical parameters in wheelchair rugby players

The practice of the wheelchair rugby is becoming more and more worldwide. However, few biomechanical studies have focused on this sport. The aim of this study was to compare kinematic parameters of wheelchair rugby players, classified as defensive players (LP-D) versus offensive players (HP-O). Twenty-nine wheelchair rugby players (17 LP-D and 12 HP-O) performed a 20-m sprint test. The peak velocities, temporal parameters (propulsion phase time, deceleration phase time, cycle time and cycle frequencies) and asymmetries (the difference in peak velocities between the right and the left wheels) were measured at the acceleration and constant peak velocity phases of the sprint by an inertial measurement unit which was placed on each rear wheel. At the acceleration and constant peak velocity phases, peak velocities and cycle frequencies were higher in HP-O players than LP-D players. The deceleration phase times and the cycle times were higher in LP-D players than HP-O players. However, no significant difference in asymmetry was found between LP-D players and HP-O players. The HP-O players showed superior performance than the LP-D players, but they could be more exposed at risk of injury at their upper limbs than LP-D players.

Criterion Validity of a Field-Based Assessment of Aerobic Capacity in Wheelchair Rugby Athletes

PURPOSE

To confirm whether peak aerobic capacity determined during laboratory testing could be replicated during an on-court field-based test in wheelchair rugby players.

METHODS

Sixteen wheelchair rugby players performed an incremental speed-based peak oxygen uptake (V˙O2peak) test on a motorized treadmill (TM) and completed a multistage fitness test (MFT) on a basketball court in a counterbalanced order, while spirometric data were recorded. A paired t test was performed to check for systematic error between tests. A Bland-Altman plot for V˙O2peak illustrated the agreement between the TM and MFT results and how this related to the boundaries of practical equivalence.

RESULTS

No significant differences between mean V˙O2peak were reported (TM: 1.85 [0.63] vs MFT: 1.81 [0.63] L·min-1; P = .33). Bland-Altman plot for V˙O2peak suggests that the mean values are in good agreement at the group level; that is, the exact 95% confidence limits for the ratio systematic error (0.95-1.02) are within the boundaries of practical equivalence (0.88-1.13) showing that the group average TM and MFT values are interchangeable. However, consideration of the data at the level of the individual athlete suggests that the TM and MFT results were not interchangeable because the 95% ratio limits of agreement either coincide with the boundaries of practical equivalence (upper limit) or fall outside (lower limit).

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that the MFT provides a suitable test at a group level with this cohort of wheelchair rugby players for the assessment of V˙O2peak (range 0.97-3.64 L·min-1), yet caution is noted for interchangeable use of values between tests for individual players.

Physiological and biomechanical comparison of overground, treadmill, and ergometer handrim wheelchair propulsion in able-bodied subjects under standardized conditions

Background

Handrim wheelchair propulsion is often assessed in the laboratory on treadmills (TM) or ergometers (WE), under the assumption that they relate to regular overground (OG) propulsion. However, little is known about the agreement of data obtained from TM, WE, and OG propulsion under standardized conditions. The current study aimed to standardize velocity and power output among these three modalities to consequently compare obtained physiological and biomechanical outcome parameters.

Methods

Seventeen able-bodied participants performed two submaximal practice sessions before taking part in a measurement session consisting of 3 × 4 min of submaximal wheelchair propulsion in each of the different modalities. Power output and speed for TM and WE propulsion were matched with OG propulsion, making them (mechanically) as equal as possible. Physiological data and propulsion kinetics were recorded with a spirometer and a 3D measurement wheel, respectively.

Results

Agreement among conditions was moderate to good for most outcome variables. However, heart rate was significantly higher in OG propulsion than in the TM condition. Push time and contact angle were smaller and fraction of effective force was higher on the WE when compared to OG/TM propulsion. Participants used a larger cycle time and more negative work per cycle in the OG condition. A continuous analysis using statistical parametric mapping showed a lower torque profile in the start of the push phase for TM propulsion versus OG/WE propulsion. Total force was higher during the start of the push phase for the OG conditions when compared to TM/WE propulsion.

Conclusions

Physiological and biomechanical outcomes in general are similar, but possible differences between modalities exist, even after controlling for power output using conventional techniques. Further efforts towards increasing the ecological validity of lab-based equipment is advised and the possible impact of these differences -if at all- in (clinical) practice should be evaluated.