Upper Extremity Kinematics During Ergonomic Hand Drive Wheelchair Propulsion

Wheelchair ergonomic hand drive mechanism use improves wrist mechanics associated with carpal tunnel syndrome

Among conventional manual wheelchair (CMW) users, 49% to 63% experience carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) that is likely induced by large forces transmitted through the wrist and extreme wrist orientations. The ergonomic hand drive mechanism (EHDM) tested in this study has been shown to utilize a more neutral wrist orientation. This study evaluates the use of an EHDM in terms of wrist orientations that may predispose individuals to CTS. Eleven adult full-time CMW users with spinal cord injury participated. Motion data were captured as participants propelled across a flat surface, completing five trials in a CMW and five trials in the same CMW fitted with the EHDM. Average angular wrist orientations were compared between the two propulsion styles. Use of the EHDM resulted in reduced wrist extension and ulnar deviation. The shift to more neutral wrist orientations observed with EHDM use may reduce median nerve compression.

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

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, Vo2 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.