Cooper R A, Dvorznak M J, O'Connor T J, Boninger M L, Jones D K
Department of Rehabilitation Science and Technology, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Systems PA 15206, USA.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Oct;79(10):1244-9. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(98)90269-6.
To examine the influence of three electric-powered wheelchair braking conditions and four wheelchair seating conditions on electric-powered wheelchair motion and Hybrid II test dummy motion. This study provides quantitative information related to assessing the safety of electric-powered wheelchair driving.
Rehabilitation engineering comparison and ANSI/ RESNA standards testing. Convenience sample of eight different electric-powered wheelchairs. Within-chair comparisons were conducted.
Electric-powered wheelchairs were compared under three braking scenarios (joystick release, joystick reverse, power-off) and four seating conditions (seatbelt and legrests, seatbelt and no legrests, no seatbelt but legrests, no seatbelt and no legrests).
A rehabilitation engineering center.
The braking distance, braking time, and braking accelerations for electric-powered wheelchairs during three braking scenarios; trunk motion, head motion, and trunk angular acceleration during three braking scenarios and four seating conditions; and number of falls from the wheelchairs for three braking scenarios and four seating conditions.
Significant differences (p < .05) were found in braking distance, braking time, and braking acceleration when comparing the joystick release and joystick reverse scenarios with the power-off scenario. The mean braking distance was shortest with the power-off braking scenario (.89m), whereas it was longest when the joystick was released (1.66m). Significant differences (p < .05) in head displacement and trunk angular displacement were observed among braking conditions and between seating conditions. There were also significant differences (p = .0011) among braking conditions for maximum trunk angular acceleration. The Hybrid II test dummy fell from the wheelchairs with highest frequency when there were no legrests and no seatbelt used.
The results of this study indicate that use of a seatbelt when driving an electric-powered wheelchair reduces the risk of falling from a wheelchair. Furthermore, the use of legrests can reduce the risk of injury to the wheelchair driver. This study shows that the most abrupt braking occurs when deactivating the power switch.
研究三种电动轮椅制动条件和四种轮椅座位条件对电动轮椅运动及Hybrid II试验假人运动的影响。本研究提供了与评估电动轮椅驾驶安全性相关的定量信息。
康复工程比较和ANSI/RESNA标准测试。选取八款不同电动轮椅的便利样本。进行了轮椅内部比较。
在三种制动场景（操纵杆松开、操纵杆反向、断电）和四种座位条件（有安全带和腿托、有安全带无腿托、无安全带但有腿托、无安全带无腿托）下对电动轮椅进行比较。
康复工程中心。
三种制动场景下电动轮椅的制动距离、制动时间和制动加速度；三种制动场景和四种座位条件下的躯干运动、头部运动和躯干角加速度；三种制动场景和四种座位条件下从轮椅上跌落的次数。
将操纵杆松开和操纵杆反向场景与断电场景进行比较时，制动距离、制动时间和制动加速度存在显著差异（p < 0.05）。断电制动场景下的平均制动距离最短（0.89米），而操纵杆松开时最长（1.66米）。在制动条件之间以及座位条件之间，头部位移和躯干角位移存在显著差异（p < 0.05）。最大躯干角加速度的制动条件之间也存在显著差异（p = 0.0011）。当不使用腿托和安全带时，Hybrid II试验假人从轮椅上跌落的频率最高。
本研究结果表明，驾驶电动轮椅时使用安全带可降低从轮椅上跌落的风险。此外，使用腿托可降低轮椅驾驶者受伤的风险。本研究表明，关闭电源开关时制动最为突然。
