title: Performance of selected lightweight wheelchairs on ANSI/RESNA tests. American National Standards Institute-Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This study provides data for clinicians and wheelchair users to compare the durability, stability, and cost effectiveness of three different lightweight wheelchair models: the Everest & Jennings EZ Lite, the Invacare Rolls 2000, and the Quickie Designs Breezy. A second objective was to compare the results from this study to those published for ultralight and institutional depot wheelchairs.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomized standards testing of three wheelchair models from each manufacturer (nine wheelchairs total).
  
  
  RESULTS
  There were no significant differences (p > .05) in fatigue life, life-cycle cost, or static stability between the three models of lightweight wheelchairs (ie, EZ Lite, Rolls 2000, or Breezy). There were, however, significant differences (p < .05) in fatigue life among the lightweight wheelchairs of this study and the published results for ultralight rehabilitation wheelchairs and for depot wheelchairs. The lightweight wheelchairs had an average fatigue life greater than the depot wheelchairs but less than the rehabilitation wheelchairs. A depot-type wheelchair was defined as a manual wheelchair designed for hospital or institutional use. At lightweight wheelchair was defined as a manual wheelchair with minimal adjustments designed for individual or institutional use. An ultralight rehabilitation wheelchair was defined as a manual wheelchair designed for an individual's use as a long-term mobility aid.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The three models of lightweight wheelchairs tested are substantially similar and their fatigue lives are significantly (p < .05) lower than rehabilitation wheelchairs. Ultralight rehabilitation wheelchairs are the most cost effective over the life of the wheelchair, costing 3.4 times less (dollars per life cycle) than depot wheelchairs, and 2.3 times less (dollars per life cycle) than the lightweight wheelchairs tested in this study.
authors.affiliation: Human Engineering Research Laboratories, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
authors.forename: R A
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Cooper
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Gonzalez
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Lawrence
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Renschler
authors.forename: M L
authors.initials: ML
authors.lastname: Boninger
authors.forename: D P
authors.initials: DP
authors.lastname: VanSickle
mesh_terms: D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D004867:Equipment Design; D006801:Humans; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D014910:Wheelchairs / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards*