TY - JOUR
T1 - Effect of Wheelchair Stroke Pattern on Upper Extremity Muscle Fatigue
AU - Bickelhaupt, Brittany
AU - Oyama, Sakiko
AU - Benfield, Jonathan
AU - Burau, Keith
AU - Lee, Shuko
AU - Trbovich, Michelle
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
PY - 2018/10
Y1 - 2018/10
N2 - Background: Shoulder dysfunction is common in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) with an incidence of up to 63%. Dysfunction is a result of muscle imbalances, specifically denervated rotator cuff muscles that are repetitively used during manual wheelchair propulsion. Objective: To determine which arm stroke technique, pump (P) or semicircular (SC), is most energy efficient for long periods of propulsion. Design: A randomized study with repeated measures observations. Setting: The study was performed at an institutional gait analysis laboratory. Participants: 18 able-bodied (AB) male participants were studied and randomized into one of 2 conditions, SC or P. Methods: Shoulder muscle fatigue was measured by changes in Borg CR10 Rate of Perceived Exertion (Borg RPE) and upper extremity strength via a handheld dynamometer. Participants were studied and assigned into one of 2 conditions of wheelchair arm propulsion patterns, SC or P group, and propelled on a wheelchair treadmill for 10 minutes. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes included recordings of Borg RPE scale during continuous wheelchair propulsion and pre- and post-test dynamometer testing means for bilateral elbow and shoulder extension. Analysis of covariance, t-tests, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used in analyzing data. Results: Although not significant (P =.23), the Borg RPE scores for the SC condition were consistently higher than the scores for the P condition. In addition, the dynamometer pre- and post-test readings demonstrated a larger decrease for the SC condition participants than for the P condition participants, but were not statistically significant. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that the SC wheelchair propulsion pattern appears to be more fatiguing to shoulder muscles than the P propulsion pattern. However, more data would need to be collected to find a significant difference.
AB - Background: Shoulder dysfunction is common in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) with an incidence of up to 63%. Dysfunction is a result of muscle imbalances, specifically denervated rotator cuff muscles that are repetitively used during manual wheelchair propulsion. Objective: To determine which arm stroke technique, pump (P) or semicircular (SC), is most energy efficient for long periods of propulsion. Design: A randomized study with repeated measures observations. Setting: The study was performed at an institutional gait analysis laboratory. Participants: 18 able-bodied (AB) male participants were studied and randomized into one of 2 conditions, SC or P. Methods: Shoulder muscle fatigue was measured by changes in Borg CR10 Rate of Perceived Exertion (Borg RPE) and upper extremity strength via a handheld dynamometer. Participants were studied and assigned into one of 2 conditions of wheelchair arm propulsion patterns, SC or P group, and propelled on a wheelchair treadmill for 10 minutes. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes included recordings of Borg RPE scale during continuous wheelchair propulsion and pre- and post-test dynamometer testing means for bilateral elbow and shoulder extension. Analysis of covariance, t-tests, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used in analyzing data. Results: Although not significant (P =.23), the Borg RPE scores for the SC condition were consistently higher than the scores for the P condition. In addition, the dynamometer pre- and post-test readings demonstrated a larger decrease for the SC condition participants than for the P condition participants, but were not statistically significant. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that the SC wheelchair propulsion pattern appears to be more fatiguing to shoulder muscles than the P propulsion pattern. However, more data would need to be collected to find a significant difference.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85053298959
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85053298959#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.03.022
DO - 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.03.022
M3 - Article
C2 - 29627608
AN - SCOPUS:85053298959
SN - 1934-1482
VL - 10
SP - 1004
EP - 1011
JO - PM and R
JF - PM and R
IS - 10
ER -