Cooper R A, Gonzalez J, Lawrence B, Renschler A, Boninger M L, VanSickle D P
Human Engineering Research Laboratories, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997 Oct;78(10):1138-44. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(97)90141-6.
This study provides data for clinicians and wheelchair users to compare the durability, stability, and cost effectiveness of three different lightweight wheelchair models: the Everest & Jennings EZ Lite, the Invacare Rolls 2000, and the Quickie Designs Breezy. A second objective was to compare the results from this study to those published for ultralight and institutional depot wheelchairs.
Randomized standards testing of three wheelchair models from each manufacturer (nine wheelchairs total).
There were no significant differences (p > .05) in fatigue life, life-cycle cost, or static stability between the three models of lightweight wheelchairs (ie, EZ Lite, Rolls 2000, or Breezy). There were, however, significant differences (p < .05) in fatigue life among the lightweight wheelchairs of this study and the published results for ultralight rehabilitation wheelchairs and for depot wheelchairs. The lightweight wheelchairs had an average fatigue life greater than the depot wheelchairs but less than the rehabilitation wheelchairs. A depot-type wheelchair was defined as a manual wheelchair designed for hospital or institutional use. At lightweight wheelchair was defined as a manual wheelchair with minimal adjustments designed for individual or institutional use. An ultralight rehabilitation wheelchair was defined as a manual wheelchair designed for an individual's use as a long-term mobility aid.
The three models of lightweight wheelchairs tested are substantially similar and their fatigue lives are significantly (p < .05) lower than rehabilitation wheelchairs. Ultralight rehabilitation wheelchairs are the most cost effective over the life of the wheelchair, costing 3.4 times less (dollars per life cycle) than depot wheelchairs, and 2.3 times less (dollars per life cycle) than the lightweight wheelchairs tested in this study.
本研究为临床医生和轮椅使用者提供数据,以比较三种不同轻型轮椅型号的耐用性、稳定性和成本效益,这三种型号分别是珠峰与詹宁斯EZ Lite、英维康Rolls 2000以及快易设计微风款。第二个目的是将本研究的结果与已发表的超轻型和机构仓库用轮椅的研究结果进行比较。
对每个制造商的三种轮椅型号进行随机标准测试(共九辆轮椅)。
三种轻型轮椅型号(即EZ Lite、Rolls 2000或微风款)在疲劳寿命、生命周期成本或静态稳定性方面无显著差异(p>.05)。然而,本研究中的轻型轮椅与已发表的超轻型康复轮椅和仓库用轮椅的疲劳寿命存在显著差异(p<.05)。轻型轮椅的平均疲劳寿命大于仓库用轮椅,但小于康复轮椅。仓库型轮椅定义为专为医院或机构使用设计的手动轮椅。轻型轮椅定义为为个人或机构使用而设计的、调整最少的手动轮椅。超轻型康复轮椅定义为专为个人作为长期移动辅助工具使用而设计的手动轮椅。
测试的三种轻型轮椅型号基本相似,其疲劳寿命显著低于康复轮椅(p<.05)。超轻型康复轮椅在轮椅的整个使用周期内最具成本效益,每生命周期成本比仓库用轮椅低3.4倍,比本研究中测试的轻型轮椅低2.3倍。