1138 Performance of Selected Lightweight Wheelchairs on ANSIIRESNA Tests Rory A. Cooper, PhD, Jess Gonzalez, BS, Brad Lawrence, BS, Andrew Renschler, BS, Michael L. Boninger, MD, David P. VanSickle, MS ABSTRACT. Cooper RA, Gonzalez J, Lawrence B, Re- nschler A, Boninger ML, VanSickle DP. Performance of se- lected lightweight wheelchairs on ANSI/RESNA tests. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78: 1138-44. Objective: This study provides data for clinicians and wheel- chair users to compare the durability, stability, and cost effec- tiveness 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. Design: Randomized standards testing of three wheelchair models from each manufacturer (nine wheelchairs total). Results: There were no significant differences 0, > .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 < .OS) 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. A lightweight wheelchair was defined as a manual wheelchair with minimal adjustments designed for indi- vidual or institutional use. An ultralight rehabilitation wheel- chair was defined as a manual wheelchair designed for an indi- vidual’s use as a long-term mobility aid. Conclusion: The three models of lightweight wheelchairs tested are substantially similar and their fatigue lives are sig- nificantly (p < .0.5) lower than rehabilitation wheelchairs. Ul- tralight 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. 0 1997 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabili- tation From the Human Engineering Research Laboratories: Rehabilitation Science and Technology, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh; Pittsburgh Veterans Affairs Medical Center; and Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Submitted for publication October 18, 1996. Accepted in revised form February 11, 1997. Supported in part by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Rehabil- itation Research and Development Service (BSOS-RA), the United States Depart- ment of Education, Rehabilitation Service Administration (H129E00005), and the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (lKOSHDOl122-01). No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the authors or upon any organization with which the authors are. associated. Reprint requests to Rory A. Cooper, PhD, Human Engineering Research Labo- ratories, Pittsburgh VAMC, 7180 Highland Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15206. 0 1997 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 0003-9993/97/7810-4240$3.00/O P EOPLE OFTEN RECEIVE conflicting information when they are selecting a manual wheelchair. Nearly every manu- facturer suggests that its wheelchair is one of the best and that it will provide years of mobility. Most wheelchair manufacturers do not, however, make specific claims because such claims require approval of the US Food and Drug Administration.’ Clearly, wheelchair quality is on the rise. This is likely a result of demand from consumers, insistence by payers, and increasing competition.z.3 The development of wheelchair standards may also be having an impact on wheelchair quality. In the United States, wheelchair standards are voluntary. The US Food and Drug Administration, however, accepts test results of the American National Standards Institute-Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (ANSVRESNA) and the International Organization for Standards (ISO) as partial evidence of a wheelchair’s safety and performance. Moreover, the US Department of Veterans Affairs uses results from ANSI/RESNA testing in its purchasing decisions.3-6 Hence, wheelchair standards are set by ANSI/ RESNA’-6 and are designed to provide tests useful for the com- parison of wheelchairs. For the most part, ANSI-RESNA wheel- chair standards consist of test methods that have been developed through years of laboratory validation and arbitration. Few of the ANSI-RESNA test methods provide normative values that must be achieved in order to be in compliance. Rather, the ANSI-RESNA standards result in values disclosed by the manu- facturer. Theoretically, manufacturers would disclose the results of their products in their advertisements or in consumer reports. Because of the nature of our competitive economy, manufactur- ers should have the incentive to improve quality to make their products appear better than their competitors. However, in prac- tice this is not the case.7-9 The purpose of this study was to collect and compare the results of ANSI-RESNA wheelchair standards tests for three of the most common wheelchair models purchased. The three models-EZ Lite, Rolls 2000, and Breezy-are made by Ever- est and Jennings,” Invacare,b and Quickie Designs,’ the three largest manufacturers of wheelchairs in the world. We hypothe- sized that: (1) the total equivalent number of cycles would not be significantly different for the three wheelchair models tested; (2) the cost per total equivalent cycle would not be significantly different for the three models; (3) static stability results would not be significantly different in any orientation for the three models; (4) the total equivalent number of cycles for the ul- tralight wheelchairs would not be significantly different from published data for depot and rehabilitation wheelchairs; and (5) the cost per total equivalent cycle for the ultralight wheelchairs would not be significantly different from published data for depot and rehabilitation wheelchairs. It is believed that these data provide purchasers, payers, con- sumers, and manufacturers with information regarding the qual- ity of common existing products. This line of research should promote decision making regarding the purchase or prescription of wheelchairs, which is based upon comparative quantitative data. Through this process, wheelchair quality should continue Arch Phys Med Rehabil Vol78, October 1997