Ra. Cooper et al., PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED LIGHTWEIGHT WHEELCHAIRS ON ANSI RESNA TESTS/, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 78(10), 1997, pp. 1138-1144
Objective: This study provides data for clinicians and. wheelchair use
rs to compare the durability, stability, and cost effectiveness of thr
ee different lightweight wheelchair models: the Everest & Jennings EZ
Lite, the Invacare Rolls 2000, and the Quickie Designs Breezy. A secon
d objective was to compare the results from this study to those publis
hed for ultralight and institutional depot wheelchairs. Design: Random
ized standards testing of three wheelchair models from each manufactur
er (nine wheelchairs total). Results: There were no significant differ
ences (p>.05) in fatigue Life, life-cycle cost: or static stability be
tween the three models of lightweight wheelchairs tie, EZ Lire, Rolls
2000, or Breezy). There were, however, significant differences (p<.05)
in fatigue life among the lightweight wheelchairs of this study and t
he published results fur ultralight rehabilitation wheelchairs and fur
depot wheelchairs. The lightweight wheelchairs had an average fatigue
life greater than the: depot wheelchairs but less than the rehabilita
tion wheelchairs. A depot-type wheelchair was defined as a manual whee
lchair designed for hospital or institutional use. A lightweight wheel
chair was defined as a manual wheelchair with minimal adjustments desi
gned for individual or institutional use. An ultralight rehabilitation
wheelchair was defined as a manual wheelchair designed for an individ
ual's use as a long-term mobility aid. Conclusion: The three models of
Lightweight wheelchairs tested are substantially similar and their fa
tigue Lives are significantly (p<.05) lower than rehabilitation wheelc
hairs. Ultralight rehabilitation wheelchairs are the most cost effecti
ve over the life of the wheelchair. costing 3.4 times less (dollars pe
r Life cycle) than depot wheelchairs, and 2.3 times less (dollars per
life cycle) than the lightweight wheelchairs tested in this study. (C)
1997 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the Amer
ican Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.