1 Veterans Drive (151), Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.
1 Veterans Drive (151), Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.
J Tissue Viability. 2018 Aug;27(3):181-187. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2018.06.001. Epub 2018 Jun 12.
The purpose of this pilot study was to assess microclimate characteristics of two versions of a strap-based wheelchair seating system (perforated and solid straps) and to conduct preliminary microclimate comparisons of subjects' current wheelchair seating systems.
In this pilot study, the microclimate properties of two variations (solid and perforated) of a strap-based seating system were compared with two commonly used seating systems. Six subjects sat on three different seating systems each for 100-min test periods, while temperature and relative humidity were measured with a single sensor adjacent to the skin-seat interface. Additionally, thermal images of the seat interface were collected before and after each test period.
The thermal images revealed that the maximum surface temperature of the solid-strap-based seating system was significantly lower than the other seating systems, -1.21 °C. (95% CI -2.11 to -0.30, p = 0.02), immediately following transfer out of the seat. Five minutes after transferring out of the seat, the perforated-strap seat was significantly cooler than the other seats -0.94 °C. (95% CI -1.59 to -0.30), p = 0.01, as was the solid-strap-based seat, -1.66 °C. (95% CI -2.69 to -0.63), p = 0.01. There were no significant differences in interface temperature or relative humidity measured with the single sensor near the skin-seat interface.
This pilot study offers preliminary evidence regarding the microclimate of the strap-based seating systems compared with other common seating systems. Clinically, the strap-based seating system may offer another option for those who struggle with microclimate management.
本初步研究旨在评估两种带式轮椅座椅系统(带孔和实心带)的微气候特征,并对受试者当前轮椅座椅系统进行初步微气候比较。
在本初步研究中,比较了两种带式座椅系统(实心带和带孔带)的微气候特性与两种常用座椅系统的特性。六位受试者分别在三种不同的座椅系统上各坐 100 分钟测试期,同时使用单个传感器测量皮肤-座椅界面附近的温度和相对湿度。此外,在每次测试期前后收集座椅界面的热图像。
热图像显示,实心带式座椅系统的最大表面温度明显低于其他座椅系统,为-1.21°C(95%CI -2.11 至-0.30,p=0.02),在从座椅上转移后立即。从座椅上转移后 5 分钟,穿孔带式座椅比其他座椅明显凉爽 0.94°C(95%CI -1.59 至-0.30,p=0.01),实心带式座椅也凉爽 1.66°C(95%CI -2.69 至-0.63,p=0.01)。皮肤-座椅界面附近的单个传感器测量的界面温度或相对湿度没有显著差异。
本初步研究提供了有关带式座椅系统与其他常见座椅系统的微气候的初步证据。从临床角度来看,对于那些难以管理微气候的人来说,带式座椅系统可能是另一种选择。