ArticlePDF Available

Manual Wheelchair Longevity and Related Factors among Spinal Cord Lesion Patients

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The wheelchair is an essential mobility tool for paraplegic or tetraplegic patients. The wheelchair longevity and related factors among spinal cord lesion patients in Thailand has not been reported. The objectives of the current study were to determine the longevity of manual wheelchairs and the related factors amongspinal cord lesion patients. Spinal cord lesion patients who received treatment at the In-and/or Outpatient Rehabilitation Medicine Department were interviewed for demographic data and factors related to wheelchair use. Data were analyzed for means, medians, and negative and positive factors related to wheelchair usage and life expectancy. Sixty patients were included in the study. The respective mean and median manual wheelchair lifetime was 4 years and 4 months (52.3 ± 28.7 months) and 4 years. Most participants required their first wheelchair repair within the first 2 years. Survival analysis revealed that after 4 years of use, 50% of wheelchairs were still functioning. The negative factor significantly affecting lifetime was navigating the wheelchair on a lawn (p = 0.003) while the positive factor was navigating on smooth concrete (p = 0.006). Participants who navigated the wheelchair on a lawn surface had greater chance of getting early wheelchair replacement.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Asia-Pacific Journal of Science and Technology: Volume: 22. Issue: 03. Article ID.: APST-22-03-05. Research Article
Asia-Pacific Journal of Science and Technology
https://www.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/APST/index
Published by the Research and Technology Transfer Affairs Division,
Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Manual WheelchairLongevity and Related Factors among Spinal Cord Lesion Patients
Panya Ngamwongsa-nguan1, Preeda Arayawichanon1, Nuttaset Manimmanakorn1,*
1Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, KhonKaen University
*Correspondent author: natman@kku.ac.th
Received January 2016
Accepted June 2016
Abstract
The wheelchair is an essential mobility tool for paraplegic or tetraplegic patients. The wheelchair longevity and
related factors among spinal cord lesion patients in Thailand has not been reported. The objectives of the current
study were to determine the longevity of manual wheelchairs and the related factors amongspinal cord lesion
patients. Spinal cord lesion patients who received treatment at the In-and/or Out-patient Rehabilitation Medicine
Department were interviewed for demographic data and factors related to wheelchair use. Data were analyzed for
means, medians, and negative and positive factors related to wheelchair usage and life expectancy. Sixty patients
were included in the study. The respective mean and median manual wheelchair lifetime was 4 years and 4 months
(52.3 ± 28.7 months) and 4 years. Most participants required their first wheelchair repair within the first 2 years.
Survival analysis revealed that after 4 years of use, 50% of wheelchairs were still functioning. The negative factor
significantly affecting lifetime was navigating the wheelchair on a lawn (p = 0.003) while the positive factor was
navigating on smooth concrete (p = 0.006). Participants who navigated the wheelchair on a lawn surface had
greater chance of getting early wheelchair replacement.
Keywords: wheelchair, broken, repair, wheelchair lifetime, spinal cord lesion patients
1. Introduction
The wheelchair is an important mobility aid for
disabled patients. In 2014, 6.8 million Americans used
an assistive device for mobility, of which 1.7 million
used a wheelchair or scooter [1]. Spinal cord lesion
(paraplegia and quadriplegia) is the leading disorder
among those between 18 and 64 years of age needing
a wheelchair or scooter [1]. The number of spinal cord
injury patients in the USA in 2014 was 240,000 and
< 1% have full recovery at discharge from hospital [2].
McClure et al. (2009) reported that 70% of patients
with such an injury used a wheelchair [3].
There are many types of wheelchairs, including the
manual and electrical wheelchair. The majority of
patients (90%) who depended on wheelchairs or
scooters used a manual wheelchair, particularly those
living in a low family income [1]. The durability of a
wheelchair is influenced by how it is used and the
quality of manufacture. Chen et al. and Oyster et al.
determined that the factors affecting performance,
breakage and accidents were: (i) personal factors (i.e.,
body weight, level of spinal cord injuries, duration of
daily use, characteristic of use, maintenance, career,
duration of disease); (ii) environmental factors (i.e.,
type of surface); and, (iii) wheelchair factors (i.e.,
brand, type, material composition) [4-5].
In Thailand, the 2012 National Disability Survey
revealed that the number of disabled persons was 1.48
million or 2.0 percent of the population [6]. One-third
(34.4%) had difficulty walking and 11.8% could not
walk at all [6]. Patients who could not ambulate and
required a wheelchair was about 600,000 persons.
Most wheelchair users in the younger group were
paraplegics or tetraplegics requiring a wheelchair for
independence and the majority used a manual standard
wheelchair just as in developed countries.
The aims of this study were to determine (a) the
average lifespan of a manual standard wheelchair and
(b) the related factors affecting the longevity of manual
wheelchairs used by the patients with spinal cord
disorders. The benefits of this study are to provide (a)
evidence-based recommendations to the Thai
government on the timing of subsidies to replace
2
broken wheelchairs, and (b) information to wheelchair
users on the proper operation and maintenance of a
wheelchair.
2. Materials and Methods
This study included spinal cord disorder patients
between 18 and 70 years of age who required a
wheelchair. All patients received treatment from the
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, KhonKaen
University between November 1, 2012 and September
30, 2013. The patients had all used at least one
wheelchair until it failed.
The patients gave written informed consent before
entering the study. The included patients were
interviewed and recorded their (a) demographic data,
(b) level and severity of spinal cord disorders, (c)
duration of wheelchair usage (the duration from start
using a new wheelchair until stop using due to
wheelchair broken and unrepairable), and (d) related
factors (i.e., frequency of use, activities, maintenance
program and breakage). The patients who changed the
wheelchair from other reasons before the wheelchairs
were broken,non-communicative patients or patients
with complications that obviated wheelchair use (i.e.,
having pressure sores) were excluded. The Human
Ethics Committee of KhonKaen University
(HE561422) approved the study protocol.
Descriptive statistics for the lifetime of each
wheelchair were calculated, including: means,
standard deviations (mean±SD) and median. A
univariate analysis for related factors (continuous
data) was done using an ANOVA, while the
categorical data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon-
Mann-Whitney test and the Kruskal-Wallis test. A
multivariate analysis was performed using multiple
linear regression. The probability of wheelchair
survival (long-term durability/usage) was reported
using a Kaplan-Meier survival curve. Statistical
analyses were conducted using STATA version 10.
The p-value was accepted at < 0.05.
3. Results
The data were collected from the interviews of 60
patients (48 males and 12 females; 50 paraplegics, 10
tetraplegics; average age 40.1±10.3 years, BMI
21.6±4.5 kg·m-1). Lesions included 9 cervical, 42
thoracic and 9 lumbar. The respective severity of
disability was: 32 ASIA A, 16 ASIA B, 9 ASIA C and
ASIA D (ASIA stand forThe American Spinal Injury
Association Impairment Scale). The causes of spinal
cord injury included: accident (n=43), spinal cord
tumor (n=4), degenerative spine (n=1), and other
medical conditions (n=12). The cost of treatment was
paid by: Universal Health Care Scheme (n=42), Social
Security Scheme (n=16) and Civil Servants Medical
Benefits Scheme (n=2). Thirty-three patients were
able to maintain their job while using a wheelchair.
The baseline data are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1 Patient characteristics
Characteristic
N = 60 (%)
48 (80)
12 (20)
40.06±10.32
21.6±4.5
43 (71.7)
12 (20)
4 (6.7)
1 (1.7)
50 (83.3)
10 (16.7)
9 (15)
42 (70)
9 (15)
3
Table 1 Patient characteristics(Continue)
Characteristic
N = 60 (%)
32 (53.3)
16 (26.7)
9 (15)
1 (1.7)
2 (3.3)
1 (1.7)
4 (6.7)
1 (1.7)
2 (3.3)
1 (1.7)
1 (1.7)
50 (83.3)
Occupation
No
Self-employed
Government service
Freelance
Agriculture
Student
27 (45)
2 (3.3)
9 (15)
17 (28.3)
3 (5)
2 (3.3)
Sponsorship
Universal Health Care Scheme
Social Security Scheme
Civil Servants Medical Benefits Scheme
42 (70)
16 (26.7)
2 (3.3)
Broken part
Handles
Backrest
Armrests
Frame
Clothing guards
Seat cushion
Heel loop
Brakes
Foot plates
Casters
Caster housings
Push rims
Rear wheel
Rear wheel housing
Tyres
Pneumatic tyres
1 (0.4)
14 (5.4)
25 (9.6)
15 (5.8)
6 (2.3)
24 (9.2)
8 (3.1)
38 (14.6)
22 (8.3)
10 (3.8)
42 (16.1)
10 (3.8)
8 (3.1)
4 (1.5)
21 (8.0)
13 (5.0)
What happen after broken wheelchair?
Self-payment for new wheelchair
Continue using broken wheelchair
Stop using broken wheelchair
Received new wheelchair from government (broken after 5
years)
8 (12.3)
26 (40)
4 (6.2)
22 (36.7)
4
Table 2. Wheelchair use and repair characteristics
Characteristic
Number (%)
Floor
Concrete
Lawn
Sand
Impacted soil
Gravel
Tile
45 (36.3)
11 (8.9)
13 (10.5)
6 (4.8)
25 (20.2)
24 (19.4)
Independent
Dependent
58 (96.7)
2 (3.3)
Activity
Community (≥50 m)
Household
Using during shower
Sports and exercise
38 (26.0)
55 (37.7)
24 (16.4)
14 (9.6)
Cause
Accident
Deliberately damage
Stolen
Not specified
8 (13.3)
1 (1.7)
1 (1.7)
50 (83.3)
Maintenance program
Check up
First repaired
Never
< 6 months
6-12 months
1-2 years
>2 years
Method of repair
Owner
Bicycle shop
Dealer
Hospital
2 (3.3)
16 (26.7)
7 (11.7)
8 (13.3)
22 (36.7)
7 (11.7)
35 (40.2)
14 (16.1)
0 (0)
20 (23.0)
The average wheelchair lifetime was 4.3±2.4 years
(median, 4 years). Daily use averaged 7.4±5.0 h/day.
The types of floor on which the wheelchair was used
included smooth concrete floors (36.3%), compacted
soil (4.8%), lawn (8.9%), sand (10.5%), gravel
(20.2%), and tile (19.4%). Most (96.7%) of the
patients operated their wheelchair for independent
mobility. Community navigation (> 50 m) was 26.0%
vs. 37.7% who had only household use. Sport activity
and taking a shower both accounted for 16.4% of use.
The causes of damage were accidental (13.3%),
deliberate or someone broke (1.7%), vandalism (parts
stolen) (1.7%) and non-specified from routine use
(83.3%). The most common broken parts were the
front wheel bearing (16.1%), brakes (14.6%), arm rests
(9.6%), seat (9.2%), foot rest (11.4%), tyres (13.4%),
metal frame (8.1%), back rest (5.6%), front wheel
(3.8%), rear wheel (3.1%) and rear wheel bearings
(1.5%). Broken wheelchairs were repaired by: (a) the
owner (40.2%), (b) a bicycle shop (16.1%), or (c) a
hospital (23.0%): none was repaired by a wheelchair
dealer.
One-third (36%) of wheelchairs were broken
within 2 years. A large number (40%) of patients with
5
a broken wheelchair did not receive support for a new
wheelchair. Factor analysis revealed the negative
factor limiting wheelchair lifetime was handling it on
lawns (p = 0.003, 95%CI -44.32 to -9.57) while the
positive factor was handling on smooth concrete (p =
0.006, 6.12 to 35.02). Body weight, level of injury,
usage per day, occupation, duration of disease and
brand of wheelchair had no significant impact.
Survival analysis revealed that 50% of wheelchairs
had a 4-year life expectancy
, 62% were not working after 4.3 years (on the
average wheelchair lifetime), and 70% of wheelchairs
were broken by 5 years (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Survival analysis of wheelchair lifetime (a = 50% of patients without broken wheelchair at 48
months; b = 38% of patients without broken wheelchair at 52 months; c = 30% of patients without broken
wheelchair at 60 months).
4. Discussion
The study revealed the median wheelchair lifespan
was 4 years, while the average was 4.3±2.4 years.
Survival analysis showed that 50% of wheelchairs
were working for the median and 38% for the average
lifetime. The significant beneficial factor was driving
on smooth concrete and the harmful factor was driving
on lawn.
Survival analysis revealed that 50% of wheelchairs
had a 4-year lifetime, which means that half of the
patients suffered from limitations to community
mobility after 4 years if they were unable to afford a
new wheelchair. If they continued to use a broken
wheelchair, accident or injury was a real possibility.
Patients who have broken wheelchair should receive a
replacement as soon as possible; however, this is not
always feasible in developing countries where budgets
are limited. This study, therefore, suggested the most
appropriate time for the government to subsidize a new
wheelchair (replace a broken one) should be after not
more than 4 years of use.
The current study found that the type of surface
where the wheelchair was used affected its lifespan.
Use on smooth concrete lengthened wheelchair
longevity, while use on lawn or earth shortened it.
Chen et al. (2011) confirmed that use of a wheelchair
on a rough or uneven surface was related to accidents
and damage [4]. Factors not significantly related to
wheelchair lifespan included body weight, level of
injury, occupation, duration of disease, and usage per
day. Sooksomporn and Poosiripinyo (2014) reported
that the greater the distance (>50 m/day), the more
potential for significant damage [7]. Stated otherwise,
the driving impact distance has more than duration of
use per day. Previous studies suggested that the type of
wheelchair (manual or power) and type of frame
(standard, lightweight or ultralight weight) are related
to lifespan [8-10]. All patients in the study used the
same standard, manual wheelchairs but different
brands. The study did not find any significant
difference among the different brands. The results
indicate wheelchair quality by manufacturer in
Thailand were comparable.
6
Our study, as with that of Sooksomporn and
Poosiripinyo [7], demonstrated that the commonly
broken parts were the wheel bearings and brakes.
Fitzgerald et al. (2005) found that the most commonly
broken part was the tyre, but they did not confirm the
finding of damage to the wheel bearings or brakes[11].
For the most part, our patients used the wheelchair for
indoor activities (37.7%). The brakes of the
wheelchair may frequently be used for short distance,
indoor activities. Patients need to be taught how to
operate and maintain a wheelchair correctly.
There are three systems of social welfare to support
new wheelchair in Thailand. The Civil Servants
Medical Benefits Scheme provides only one
wheelchair for lifetime. The Social Security Scheme
subsidizes new wheelchair for every 5 years. The
Universal Health Care Scheme currently supports new
wheelchair every 3 years. The results of this study
suggested that the Civil Servants Medical Benefits
Scheme and the Social Security Scheme should
support new wheelchair similar to the Universal
Health Care Scheme.
The limitation of the current study was the
generalizability of the results. We included only
patients in the rehabilitation program at Srinagarind
Hospital: the people are not necessarily representative.
Additionally, the data were collected through
interviews with potential for a recall bias.
5. Conclusion
The average lifespan of a wheelchair was 4.3±2.4
years: the median lifetime was 4 years. Since 50% of
wheelchairs were broken before 4 years, the
government should consider that the most appropriate
time for supporting a new wheelchair be not greater
than 4 years of use. Giving information such as how to
operate a wheelchair and using it on a smooth surface
are recommended for extending wheelchair life
expectancy.
6. Acknowledgement
This study was granted by Faculty of Medicine,
Khon Kaen University, Thailand (Grant Number
I57122). Special thanks to Dr. Kaewjai
Thepsuthammarat at the Clinical Epidemiology Unit,
Khon Kaen University for assistance with the
statistical analysis, and Mr. Bryan Roderick Hamman
for assistance with the English-language presentation.
7. References
[1] Kaye HS, Kang T, LaPlante MP. Mobility device
use in the United States. Disability Statistics
Report 14. 2000.
[2] National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center.
Facts and figures at a glance. Birmingham, AL:
University of Alabama at Birmingham; February
2014.
[3] McClure LA, Boninger ML, Oyster ML,
Williams S, Houlihan B, Lieberman JA, et al.
Wheelchair repairs, breakdown, and adverse
consequences for people with traumatic spinal
cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
2009;90(12):2034-8.
[4] Chen WY, Jang Y, Wang JD, Huang WN, Chang
CC, Mao HF, et al. Wheelchair-related
accidents: relationship with wheelchair-using
behavior in active community wheelchair users.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 ;92(6):892-8.
[5] Oyster ML, Karmarkar AM, Patrick M, Read
MS, Nicolini L, Boninger ML. Investigation of
factors associated with manual wheelchair
mobility in persons with spinal cord injury. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(3):484-90.
[6] National Statistical Office of Thailand. The 2012
Disability Survey. Ministry of Information and
Communication Technology. [Cited 2015 March
29]. Available from: www.nso.go.th.
[7] Sooksomporn P, Poosiripinyo E. Common
broken components of wheelchairs used by
persons with disability. J Thai Rehabil Med.
2014;24(2):67-72.
[8] Cooper RA, Boninger ML, Rentschler A.
Evaluation of selected ultralight manual
wheelchairs using ANSI/RESNA standards.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(4):462-7.
[9] Cooper RA, Gonzalez J, Lawrence B, Renschler
A, Boninger ML, VanSickle DP. Performance of
selected lightweight wheelchairs on
ANSI/RESNA tests. American National
Standards Institute-Rehabilitation Engineering
and Assistive Technology Society of North
America. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
1997;78(10):1138-44.
[10] Wang H, Liu HY, Pearlman J, Cooper R, Jefferds
A, Connor S, et al. Relationship between
wheelchair durability and wheelchair type and
years of test. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol.
2010;5(5):318-22.
[11] Fitzgerald SG, Collins DM, Cooper RA,
Tolerico M, Kelleher A, Hunt P, et al. Issues in
maintenance and repairs of wheelchairs: A pilot
study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(6):853-62.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
In this pilot study, we assessed wheelchair durability and its effect on user satisfaction. Specifically, we examined the characteristics of the participants' wheelchairs, the types of maintenance and repairs completed, and whether the participants' satisfaction was affected by problems with their wheelchairs. A convenience sample of 130 participants who used wheelchairs as their primary means of mobility was recruited. Participants completed a questionnaire about their wheelchairs, the maintenance and repair history, and their satisfaction levels. Results showed that 26% of the participants had completed a wheelchair repair in the past 6 months, 16% had completed general maintenance, and 27% had completed tire repairs. Neither hours of wheelchair use nor wheelchair age affected repair or maintenance frequency. Participants were generally satisfied with their wheelchairs. Better understanding of wheelchair maintenance and repair issues will guide improvements in wheelchair design and enhance the community participation of individuals who use wheelchairs.
Article
To report the prevalence, mechanisms, self-perceived causes, consequences, and wheelchair-using behaviors associated with wheelchair-related accidents. A case-control study. Community. A sample of experienced, community-dwelling, active manual and powered wheelchair users (N=95) recruited from a hospital assistive technology service center. Not applicable. Wheelchair-using behaviors, wheelchair-related accidents over a 3-year period, and the mechanisms and consequences of the accidents. Among the 95 participants, 52 (54.7%) reported at least 1 accident and 16 (16.8%) reported 2 or more accidents during the 3 years prior to the interview. A total of 74 accidents, were categorized into tips and falls (87.8%), accidental contact (6.8%), and dangerous operations (5.4%). A logistic regression found individuals who failed to maintain their wheelchairs regularly (odds ratio [OR]=11.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.62-48.61) and used a wheelchair not prescribed by professionals (OR=4.31; 95% CI, 1.10-16.82) had significantly greater risks of accidents. In addition to the risk factor, lack of regular wheelchair maintenance, the Poisson regression corroborated the other risk factor, seat belts not used (incident rate ratio=2.14; 95% CI, 1.08-4.14), for wheelchair-related accidents. Wheelchair-related accidents are closely related to their wheelchair-using behaviors. Services including professional evaluation, repair, maintenance, and an educational program on proper wheelchair use may decrease the risks of wheelchair accidents.
Article
To quantify wheelchair mobility of persons with a spinal cord injury (SCI), and to assess the relationship between wheelchair mobility and demographics, type of manual wheelchair, and participation. Cross-sectional study. Six Model Spinal Cord Injury Systems. People (N=132) with SCI who use a manual wheelchair as their primary means of mobility. Not applicable. Wheelchair-related mobility characteristics measured by a data-logging device, and community participation measured by the short form of the Craig Handicap Assessment Recording Technique (CHART). Age was found to be significantly (r=-.225, P<.01) related to average speed traveled per day. Whites were found to travel significantly further (P<.01) and accumulate more minutes per day (P<.01) compared with minorities. Participants who were employed traveled significantly further (P<.01), faster (P<.01), and for more minutes per day (P<.01) compared with those who were not employed. A moderate relationship (r=.245-.390) was found between wheelchair mobility data and CHART total score. Results suggest a need for future investigation of the factors that influence wheelchair mobility and community participation of persons with SCI. Findings indicate the efficacy of a quantitative method to track wheelchair mobility in community settings, which could serve as a way of identifying community participation for persons with SCI and possibly uncovering additional aspects of participation.
Article
To investigate the relationship between the durability of wheelchairs according to American National Standard for Wheechairs/Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (ANSI/RESNA) Wheelchair Standards and wheelchair type as well as year of test. A retrospective study design with a sample of 246 wheelchairs that were tested in accordance with the ANSI/RESNA standards from 1992 to 2008 including four types of wheelchairs: manual wheelchair (MWC), electrical powered wheelchair (EPW), scooters and pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair (PAPAW). Unconditional binary logic regression analysis was chosen to evaluate the relationship between test results and test year as well as wheelchair type. Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center. Wheelchair durability test result (fatigue test: pass or fail) There was no significant correlation between the year when tested and equivalent cycles. A significant relation was found between test results and wheelchair type (Wald score = 10.845, degree of freedom = 3, p = 0.013) with scooters having a significantly higher pass ratio than MWC (OR = 15.629, 95% CI = 2.026-120.579). EPW also had significantly higher pass ratio than MWC (OR = 1.953, 95% CI = 1.049-3.636). No significant difference on pass ratio was found between PAPAW and MWC. No significant improvements in wheelchair test results during the time frame from 1992 to 2008 were discovered. Wheelchair standard tests should be conducted to assure minimum quality of the wheelchairs and for improving the design of wheelchairs. Although the ANSI/RESNA wheelchair durability test procedures have remained consistent, it does not appear that the introduction of new materials, designs and the availability of test data have improved wheelchair fatigue life.
Article
McClure LA, Boninger ML, Oyster ML, Williams S, Houlihan B, Lieberman JA, Cooper RA. Wheelchair repairs, breakdown, and adverse consequences for people with traumatic spinal cord injury. To investigate the frequency of repairs that occurred in a 6-month period and the consequences of breakdowns on wheelchair users living with spinal cord injuries (SCIs), and to determine whether certain wheelchair and subject characteristics are associated with an increased number of repairs and adverse consequences. Convenience sample survey. Sixteen Model Spinal Cord Injury Systems Centers that are part of the national database funded through the Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. People with SCI who use a wheelchair for more than 40h/wk (N=2213). Not applicable. The frequency of wheelchair repairs and occurrence of adverse consequences caused by a wheelchair breakdown in a 6-month period. Within a 6-month period, 44.8% of full-time wheelchair users completed a repair, and 8.7% had an adverse consequence occur. People who use power wheelchairs required significantly more repairs (P<.001), and adverse consequences occurred more frequently (P<.001) compared with manual wheelchair users. The presence of power seat functions, and a person's occupational status or sex did not influence the number of repairs or adverse consequences. Frequent repairs and breakdown can negatively impact a person's life by decreasing community participation and threatening health and safety. Mandatory compliance with the American National Standards Institute and the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America standards, changes in insurance reimbursement policy, and patient and clinician education are necessary to reduce the number of repairs and adverse consequences that occur.
Article
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.
Article
To provide data for clinicians and wheelchair users to compare the durability, strength, stability, and cost effectiveness of four different ultralight wheelchair models, and to compare the results of this study with those published for lightweight wheelchairs. Standards testing and cost-effectiveness analysis of four wheelchair models from different manufacturers (12 wheelchairs total). There were significant differences (p< or =.05) in the fatigue life and value (equivalent cycles per dollar) among the ultralight wheelchairs tested. There was also a significant difference (p< or =.05) in rearward stability tilt angle for the least and most stable configurations. There were no differences in forward and lateral stability. The ultralight wheelchairs (1,009,108 cycles) had significantly (p< or =.05) higher fatigue lives than previously reported for lightweight wheelchairs (187,370 cycles). The lightweight wheelchairs had a mean value of 210 cycles per dollar compared to 673 cycles per dollar for the ultralight wheelchairs. The difference in value for the lightweight and ultralight wheelchairs was statistically significant (p< or =.05). There were differences in the fatigue life and value among the four models of ultralight manual wheelchairs tested. This indicates that ultralight manual wheelchairs are not all of equal quality. The fatigue life and value of the ultralight manual wheelchairs were significantly higher than those previously reported for lightweight manual wheelchairs. This indicates that ultralight wheelchairs may be of higher quality than lightweight manual wheelchairs. Clinicians and consumers should seriously consider selecting an ultralight manual wheelchair to meet their wheelchair mobility needs.
Common broken components of wheelchairs used by persons with disability
  • P Sooksomporn
  • E Poosiripinyo
Sooksomporn P, Poosiripinyo E. Common broken components of wheelchairs used by persons with disability. J Thai Rehabil Med. 2014;24(2):67-72.