Handrim Wheelchair Propulsion Technique in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury With and Without Shoulder Pain: A Cross-sectional Comparison.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare handrim wheelchair propulsion technique between individuals with spinal cord injury with and without shoulder pain. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study including 38 experienced handrim wheelchair users with spinal cord injury was conducted. Participants were divided into the "shoulder pain" ( n = 15) and "no-shoulder pain" ( n = 23) groups using the Local Musculoskeletal Discomfort scale. Kinetic and spatiotemporal aspects of handrim wheelchair propulsion during submaximal exercise on a motor-driven treadmill were analyzed. Data were collected using a measurement wheel instrumented with three-dimensional force sensors. RESULTS: After correction for confounders (time since injury and body height), linear regression analyses showed that the pain group had a 0.30-sec (95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.1) shorter cycle time, 0.22-sec (95% confidence interval, -0.4 to -0.1) shorter recovery time, 15.6 degrees (95% confidence interval, -27.4 to -3.8) smaller contact angle, and 8% (95% confidence interval, -15 to 0) lower variability in work per push compared with the no-pain group. Other parameters did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that individuals with spinal cord injury who experience shoulder pain propel their handrim wheelchair kinematically differently from individuals with spinal cord injury without shoulder pain. This difference in propulsion technique might be a pain-avoiding mechanism aimed at decreasing shoulder range of motion.

Motor learning outcomes of handrim wheelchair propulsion during active spinal cord injury rehabilitation in comparison with experienced wheelchair users.

PURPOSE: To investigate changes in wheelchair propulsion technique and mechanical efficiency across first five weeks of active inpatient spinal cord injury rehabilitation and to compare the outcomes at discharge with experienced wheelchair users with spinal cord injury. METHODS: Eight individuals with recent spinal cord injury performed six weekly submaximal exercise tests. The first and last measurement additionally contained a wheelchair circuit and peak graded exercise test. Fifteen experienced individuals performed all above-mentioned tests on one occasion. RESULTS: Mechanical efficiency and propulsion technique did not change during the five weeks of inpatient rehabilitation. Peak power output during peak graded test and performance time on the wheelchair circuit improved between the first and the last week. No difference in propulsion technique, peak power output, and performance time was found between the persons with a recent injury and the experienced group. Mechanical efficiency was higher after the correction for the difference in relative power output in the experienced group. CONCLUSION: The group with a recent injury did not improve mechanical efficiency and propulsion technique over the period of active rehabilitation, despite significant improvements on the wheelchair circuit and in work capacity. The only significant difference between the groups was found in mechanical efficiency.Implications for rehabilitationThe lack of time-dependent changes in mechanical efficiency and propulsion technique in the group with a recent spinal cord injury, combined with the lack of differences in technique, work capacity and on the wheelchair circuit between the groups, suggest that important adaptations of motor learning may happen even earlier in rehabilitation and emphasize that the group in active rehabilitation was relatively skilled.Standardized observational analyses of handrim wheelchair propulsion abilities during early spinal cord injury rehabilitation provide detailed understanding of wheelchair technique, skill as well as wheelchair propulsion capacity.Measurement of external power output is critical to interpretation of gross efficiency, propulsion technique, and capacity.Wheelchair quality and body weight - next to wheelchair fitness and skill - require careful consideration both in early rehabilitation as well as in the chronic phase of spinal cord injury.

WHEEL-I: development of a wheelchair propulsion laboratory for rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the enabling factors and barriers experienced in the Wheelchair Expert Evaluation Laboratory - implementation (WHEEL-i) project, in which scientific knowledge, tools and associated systematic analyses of hand-rim wheelchair propulsion technique, user's wheelchair propulsion capacity, wheelchair-user interface, and wheelchair mechanics were implemented in 2 rehabilitation centres. DESIGN: Implementation project. PATIENTS: Spinal cord injury. METHODS: In this implementation project standardized tests were performed: wheelchair skills tests, 2 questionnaires, and a steady-state exercise test on a treadmill in which propulsion technique (forces and torques) and physical strain (oxygen uptake, heart rate and mechanical efficiency) were measured. RESULTS: Good interpretation of the test outcomes was the most important barrier. In order to discuss individual wheelchair performance results with patients and clinicians, reference data were developed, smallest detectable differences were calculated and software was developed to simultaneously show video recordings and force and torque signals. CONCLUSION: Based on pilot results, the greatest barrier to systematic monitoring of the individual wheelchair fitting and learning process in rehabilitation with, among others, instrumented measurement wheels, was interpretation of outcomes. For proper interpretation of individual outcomes, the availability of reference data, smallest detectable differences and visualization of outcomes is of utmost importance.

Physical strain of handcycling: an evaluation using training guidelines for a healthy lifestyle as defined by the American College of Sports Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Developments in assistive technology such as handcycling provide attractive possibilities to pursue a healthy lifestyle for patients with spinal cord injury. The objective of the study is to evaluate physical stress and strain of handcycling against training guidelines as defined by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). DESIGN: Seven able-bodied males conducted an incremental peak exercise handcycling test on a treadmill. In addition, two indoor treadmill (1.3 m/second with an inclination of 0.7% and 1.0 m/second with an inclination of 4.8%) and three outdoor over ground exercise bouts were performed (1.7, 3.3, and 5.0 m/second). One individual handcycled a representative 8-km-distance outdoors. OUTCOME MEASURES: Physical stress and strain were described in terms of absolute and relative power output, oxygen uptake (VO2), gross efficiency (GE), and heart rate (HR). Also, local perceived discomfort (LPD) was determined. RESULTS: Relative handcycling exercise intensities varied between 23.3 ± 4.2 (below the ACSM lower limit of 46%VO2peak) and 72.5 ± 15.1%VO2peak (well above the ACSM lower limit), with GE ranging from 6.0 ± 1.5% at the lower to 13.0 ± 2.6% at the higher exercise intensities. Exercise intensities were performed at 49.8 ± 4.2 to 80.1 ± 10.5%HRpeak. LPD scores were low to moderate (<27 ± 7). CONCLUSION: Handcycling is relatively efficient and exercise intensities > 46%VO2peak were elicited. However, exercise load seems to be underestimated using %HRpeak. LPD was not perceived as limiting. Physiological stress and strain in able-bodied individuals appear to be comparable to individuals with a paraplegia. To understand individualize and optimize upper-body training, different training programs must be evaluated.

Effect and process evaluation of implementing standardized tests to monitor patients in spinal cord injury rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the implementation of standardized physical and functional tests to monitor patients with a spinal cord injury (SCI) in eight rehabilitation centers and to analyze the enablers and the barriers of the implementation process. METHOD: The method involved prospective effect and process evaluation. Team members responded to mailed questionnaires at the start (n = 115) and end (n = 82) of the 1-year implementation period. Furthermore, a questionnaire was administered to managers (n = 8), coordinators (n = 8), and 32 persons with SCI in four centers. Outcome of the effect evaluation was the phase of implementation of standardized testing in each center. The process evaluation analyzed enablers and barriers of the implementation process. RESULTS: After a year of implementation, half of the centers shifted to higher implementation phases. None of the centers was classified in the highest phase. Enablers were the positive attitude of the team members regarding standardized testing and an encouraging local coordinator. Most important barrier was lack of time to implement the standardized testing. CONCLUSION: There is a large support for implementing standardized tests to monitor patients with SCI. During the 1-year, a positive shift was visible in the extent of implementation. Successful implementation of patient monitoring requires substantial amounts of time and effort of the rehabilitation centers involved.