New wheelie aid for wheelchairs: Controlled trial of safety and efficacy

Kirby RL, Lugar JA, Breckenridge C. New wheelie aid for wheelchairs: controlled trial of safety and efficacy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82:380-90. Objective: To test hypotheses that people learning to perform aided wheelies (AW) with a new self-deploying wheelie aid (WA) (1) are safer than those wh...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 2001-03, Vol.82 (3), p.380-390
Hauptverfasser: Kirby, R.Lee, Lugar, Judy A., Breckenridge, Catharine
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Kirby RL, Lugar JA, Breckenridge C. New wheelie aid for wheelchairs: controlled trial of safety and efficacy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82:380-90. Objective: To test hypotheses that people learning to perform aided wheelies (AW) with a new self-deploying wheelie aid (WA) (1) are safer than those who use the conventional wheelie (CW), (2) are more successful at learning the skills, (3) learn more quickly, and (4) find such skills less difficult. Design: Randomized, controlled study. Setting: Wheelchair obstacle course. Participants: Forty-two subjects (12 wheelchair users, 30 able-bodied) randomly assigned to the CW (n = 23) or AW (n = 19) groups. Interventions: We performed static tests on a WA-modified wheelchair occupied by a test dummy. We also attempted to teach each subject to perform a set of 14 wheelie-related skills. Main Outcome Measures: Visual analog scale (VAS) of safety, percentage of subjects able to learn the skills, the time required, and subjective difficulty scores (from 1 for “very easy” to 5 for “very difficult”). Results: Up to 11.2° of antitip-device stability was available without the WA extending beyond the rearmost aspect of the rear wheel in the resting position. For the CW and AW groups, the mean ± standard deviation VAS safety scores were 43% ± 27% and 98% ± 2% (p
ISSN:0003-9993
1532-821X
DOI:10.1053/apmr.2001.20830