Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparing the effects of different dynamic sitting strategies in wheelchair seating on lumbar-pelvic angle.
Li, Chun-Ting; Peng, Yao-Te; Tseng, Yen-Ting; Chen, Yen-Nien; Tsai, Kuen-Horng.
Afiliação
  • Li CT; Graduate Institute of Mechatronic System Engineering, National University of Tainan, No. 33, Sec. 2, Shu-Lin St., West Central Dist., Tainan City, 70005, Taiwan.
  • Peng YT; Department of BioMedical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, No.1, University Rd., East Dist., Tainan City, 70101, Taiwan.
  • Tseng YT; Graduate Institute of Mechatronic System Engineering, National University of Tainan, No. 33, Sec. 2, Shu-Lin St., West Central Dist., Tainan City, 70005, Taiwan.
  • Chen YN; Center of Excellence for Diagnostic Products, Biomedical Technology and Device Research Laboratories, Industrial Technology Research Institute, No. 195, Sec. 4, Chung-Hsing Rd., Chutung Township, Hsinchu County, 31040, Taiwan.
  • Tsai KH; Department of BioMedical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, No.1, University Rd., East Dist., Tainan City, 70101, Taiwan. yennien.chen@gmail.com.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord ; 17(1): 496, 2016 12 09.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27938365
BACKGROUND: Prolonged static sitting in a wheelchair is associated with an increased risk of lower back pain. The wheelchair seating system is a key factor of this risk because it affects spinal loading in the sitting position. In this study, 7 dynamic sitting strategies (DSSs) are examined: lumbar prominent dynamic sitting (LPDS), back reclined dynamic sitting (BRDS), femur upward dynamic sitting (FUDS), lumbar prominent with back reclined dynamic sitting (LBDS), lumbar prominent with femur upward dynamic sitting (LFDS), back reclined with femur upward dynamic sitting (BFDS), and lumbar prominent with back reclined with femur upward dynamic sitting (LBFDS). The objective of this study was to analyze the biomechanical effects of these sitting strategies on lumbar-pelvic angles. METHODS: Twenty able-bodied participants were recruited for the study. All participants performed LPDS, BRDS, FUDS, LBDS, LFDS, BFDS, and LBFDS in a random order. All lumbar-pelvic angle parameters, including the static lumbar angle, static pelvic angle, lumbar range of motion, and pelvic range of motion were measured and compared. RESULTS: Results show that LBDS and LBFDS enabled the most beneficial lumbar movements, although the difference between the 2 strategies was nonsignificant. BRDS and BFDS enabled the most beneficial pelvic movements, although the difference between the 2 strategies was nonsignificant. Among all the upright DSSs, LPDS and LFDS enabled the most beneficial lumbar and pelvic movements, although no significant difference was observed between these 2 strategies. CONCLUSIONS: We identified the effects and differences among 7 DSSs on lumbar-pelvic angles. Wheelchair users can choose the most suitable DSS that meets their needs. These findings may serve as a reference for practicing physicians or wheelchair users to choose an appropriate dynamic wheelchair seating system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12389808 , 18th November 2016, retrospectively registered.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ossos Pélvicos / Postura / Cadeiras de Rodas / Dor Lombar / Região Lombossacral Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ossos Pélvicos / Postura / Cadeiras de Rodas / Dor Lombar / Região Lombossacral Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article