Comparison of rolling resistance, propulsion technique and physiological demands between a rigid, folding and hybrid...

When selecting a manual wheelchair frame, the choice between rigid and folding frames carries significant implications. Traditional folding frames are expected to have more rolling resistance and power dissipation caused by frame deformation, while they are more convenient for transportation, such as in a car. A new hybrid frame, designed to be more rigid, aims to minimize power dissipation while still retaining foldability.

This study aimed to assess rolling resistance, power output, propulsion technique and physiological demands of handrim wheelchair propulsion across three different frames: a rigid frame, a hybrid frame and a conventional folding frame.

Forty-eight able-bodied participants performed coast-down tests using inertial measurement units to determine rolling resistance. Subsequently, four-minute submaximal exercise block under steady-state conditions at 1.11 m/s were performed on a wheelchair ergometer (n = 24) or treadmill (n = 24) to determine power output, propulsion technique and physiological demands.

Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that the hybrid frame exhibited the lowest rolling resistance (7.0 ± 1.5N, p ≤ 0.001) and required less power output (8.3 ± 1.0W, p ≤ 0.001) at a given speed, compared to both the folding (9.3 ± 2.2N, 10.8 ± 1.4W) and rigid frame (8.0 ± 1.9N, 9.4 ± 1.6W). Subsequently, this resulted in significantly lower applied forces and push frequency for the hybrid frame. The folding frame had the highest energy expenditure (hybrid: 223 ± 44 W, rigid: 234 ± 51 W, folding: 240 ± 46 W, p ≤ 0.001).

The hybrid frame demonstrated to be a biomechanically and physiologically beneficial solution compared to the folding frame, exhibiting lower rolling resistance, reduced power output, and consequently minimizing force application and push frequency, all while retaining its folding mechanism.