Life-cycle analysis of depot versus rehabilitation manual wheelchairs

The proper selection of a wheelchair requires making several critical decisions, not the least of which is what type of wheelchair is appropriate. The International Organization for Standards (ISO) continues to develop and refine wheelchair standards. Standards allow the objective comparison of products from various sources, permitting consumers or clinicians to assess wheelchairs with which they are not familiar by comparing test results. This study consisted of three components: 1) the comparison of fatigue test results with a planar ANSI/RESNA test dummy to a HERL contoured test dummy; 2) the comparison of fatigue test results for common depot versus common rehabilitation manual wheelchairs; and 3) the comparison of fatigue test results for manual rehabilitation wheelchairs with solid 8-inch casters versus those with pneumatic 8-inch casters. Rehabilitation wheelchairs lasted on average 13.2 times longer than the depot wheelchairs. Both types, tested with the standard ISO-ANSI/RESNA dummy, lasted on average 2.1 times longer than those wheelchairs tested using the contoured dummy. The three rehabilitation wheelchairs equipped with 8-inch pneumatic casters lasted on average 3.2 times longer than the 6 rehabilitation wheelchairs equipped with solid 8-inch casters. The depot wheelchairs cost about 3.4 times as much to operate per cycle or per meter than the rehabilitation wheelchairs. The rehabilitation wheelchairs tended to experience component failures, while the depot wheelchairs tended to experience frame failures. Our testing indicates that the tests in the ISO-ANSI/RESNA standards can relate design features to fatigue test results and durability. Rehabilitation wheelchairs tend to use higher quality materials and better manufacturing practices, and they provide greater mobility for wheelchair users. Purchasers and prescribers of wheelchairs should consider the life-cycle cost and not just the purchase price for wheelchairs.