Clinical and Ergonomic Comparison Between a Robotic Assisted Transfer Device and a Mobile Floor Lift During Caregiver-Assisted Wheelchair Transfers.

Am J Phys Med Rehabil

From the Human Engineering Research Laboratories, US Department of Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (MG, EB, ND, RC, GGG, AMK, RAC); School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (MG, EB, ND, RC, RB, GGG, AMK, RAC); Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda Naval Station, Bethesda, Maryland (MSL); Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda Naval Station, Bethesda, Maryland (MSL); and Center of Assistive Technology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (RC, RAC).

Published: June 2022

Background: The robotic assisted transfer device was developed as an updated lift technology to reduce adjustments in posture while increasing capabilities offered by transfer devices. The purpose of this study was to compare the trunk biomechanics of a robotic assisted transfer device and a mechanical floor lift in the transfer of a care recipient by a caregiver during essential transfer tasks.

Methods: Investigators enrolled 28 caregiver/care recipient dyads to complete 36 transferring tasks. Surface electromyography for the back muscles and motion data for trunk range of motion were collected for selected surfaces, phase, and direction tasks using a robotic assisted transfer device and a mechanical floor lift.

Results: Robotic assisted transfer device transfers required significantly smaller range of trunk flexion (P < 0.001), lateral bend (P < 0.001), and axial rotation (P = 0.01), in addition to smaller distance covered (P < 0.001), average instantaneous velocity (P = 0.01), and acceleration (P < 0.001) compared with a mobile floor lift. The robotic assisted transfer device transfers required significantly smaller peak erector spinae (left: P = 0.001; right: P < 0.001) and latissimus dorsi (right: P < 0.001) and integrated erector spinae left (P = 0.001) and latissimus dorsi right (P = 0.01) electromyography signals compared with the floor lift.

Conclusions: The robotic assisted transfer device provides additional benefits to mobile floor lifts which, coupled with statistically lower flexion, extension, and rotation, may make them an appealing alternative intervention.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9123282PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000001867DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

robotic assisted
28
assisted transfer
28
transfer device
28
mobile floor
12
floor lift
12
transfer
10
device mechanical
8
mechanical floor
8
device transfers
8
transfers required
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!