| Literature DB >> 26885511 |
I Dimbwadyo-Terrer1, A Gil-Agudo2, A Segura-Fragoso3, A de los Reyes-Guzmán2, F Trincado-Alonso2, S Piazza4, B Polonio-López5.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a virtual reality program combined with conventional therapy in upper limb function in people with tetraplegia and to provide data about patients' satisfaction with the virtual reality system. Thirty-one people with subacute complete cervical tetraplegia participated in the study. Experimental group received 15 sessions with Toyra(®) virtual reality system for 5 weeks, 30 minutes/day, 3 days/week in addition to conventional therapy, while control group only received conventional therapy. All patients were assessed at baseline, after intervention, and at three-month follow-up with a battery of clinical, functional, and satisfaction scales. Control group showed significant improvements in the manual muscle test (p = 0,043, partial η (2) = 0,22) in the follow-up evaluation. Both groups demonstrated clinical, but nonsignificant, changes to their arm function in 4 of the 5 scales used. All patients showed a high level of satisfaction with the virtual reality system. This study showed that virtual reality added to conventional therapy produces similar results in upper limb function compared to only conventional therapy. Moreover, the gaming aspects incorporated in conventional rehabilitation appear to produce high motivation during execution of the assigned tasks. This trial is registered with EudraCT number 2015-002157-35.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26885511 PMCID: PMC4739467 DOI: 10.1155/2016/6397828
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Subject's demographic and clinical characteristics.
| Variables | CG ( | IG ( |
|---|---|---|
| Sex (female/male) | 3/12 | 6/10 |
| Age [years] | 40,27 ± 13,61 | 34,53 ± 13,71 |
| Dominance (right/left) | 8/7 | 12/4 |
| Level of injury | C5(9), C6(2), C7(2), C8(2) | C5(7), C6(3), C7(5), C8(1) |
| ASIA (A–D) | A(10), B(5) | A(11), B(5) |
| Time since injury (months) | 5,60 ± 2,50 | 4,31 ± 2,06 |
| Etiology of damage (traumatic/postsurgical/infectious) | 15/0/1 | 14/1/0 |
Figure 1The flowchart of the trial according to the CONSORT statement. (CONSORT transparent reporting of trails, CONSORT 2010 Flow Diagram).
Figure 2Virtual reality system Toyra. Arm movements are captured by Inertial Sensors Xsens (Xsens Inc., Netherlands). An avatar represents in real time and mirror view the movements of the user performing a task in the virtual scenario.
Pre- and postassessment results of clinical and functional variables.
| Variables | Preassessment | Postassessment | Postbasal difference | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | IC 95% |
|
| ||
| SCIM III self-care | GC | 3,87 | 4,64 | 6,07 | 5,78 | 2,20 | (−3,186 a −1,214) | 0,118 | 0,082 |
| IG | 3,25 | 2,30 | 4,38 | 2,47 | 1,13 | (−2,152 a −0,098) | |||
|
| 0,64 | 0,29 | |||||||
|
| |||||||||
| FIM | GC | 64,20 | 14,57 | 71,53 | 19,65 | 7,33 | (−12,132 a −2,534) | 0,066 | 0,112 |
| IG | 60,69 | 6,78 | 63,25 | 7,26 | 2,56 | (−5,144 a 0,019) | |||
|
| 0,39 | 0,13 | |||||||
|
| |||||||||
| BI | GC | 18,33 | 16,33 | 30,00 | 22,52 | 11,67 | (−17,739 o −5,594) | 0,164 | 0,066 |
| IG | 18,13 | 12,76 | 24,69 | 10,56 | 6,56 | (−11,301 a −1,824) | |||
|
| 0,97 | 0,40 | |||||||
|
| |||||||||
| MB | GC | 13,07 | 5,71 | 14,27 | 5,85 | 1,20 | (−2,424 a 0,024) | 0,418 | 0,024 |
| IG | 13,75 | 5,22 | 14,27 | 5,19 | 0,52 | (−1,577 a 0,377) | |||
|
| 0,73 | 1 | |||||||
|
| |||||||||
| MI | GC | 70,53 | 18,44 | 78,80 | 20,27 | 8,27 | (−15,998 a −0,535) | 0,965 | 0 |
| IG | 68,13 | 12,88 | 76,56 | 13,28 | 8,43 | (−11,687 a −5,188) | |||
|
| 0,68 | 0,72 | |||||||
Pre- and follow-up assessment results of clinical and functional variables.
| Variables | Preassessment | Follow-up assessment | Follow-up basal difference | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | IC 95% |
|
| ||
| SCIM III self-care | GC | 3,87 | 4,64 | 7,36 | 7,08 | 3,49 | (−5,525 a −0,839) | 0,944 | 0 |
| IG | 3,25 | 2,30 | 6,64 | 7,08 | 3,39 | (−4,893 a −1,652) | |||
|
| 0,64 | 0,76 | |||||||
|
| |||||||||
| FIM | GC | 64,20 | 14,57 | 77,00 | 25,15 | 12,80 | (−21,066 a −1,843) | 0,799 | 0,003 |
| IG | 60,69 | 6,78 | 69,91 | 12,01 | 9,22 | (−16,866 a −3,316) | |||
|
| 0,39 | 0,41 | |||||||
|
| |||||||||
| BI | GC | 18,33 | 16,33 | 40,00 | 26,17 | 21,67 | (−30,997 a −7,185) | 0,3 | 0,054 |
| IG | 18,13 | 12,76 | 30,45 | 10,11 | 12,32 | (−20,131 a −4,415) | |||
|
| 0,97 | 0,27 | |||||||
|
| |||||||||
| MB | GC | 13,07 | 5,71 | 16,50 | 5,53 | 3,43 | (−3,264 a −0,736) |
0,043 | 0,22 |
| IG | 13,75 | 5,22 | 13,36 | 5,53 | -0,39 | (−1,465 a 0,374) | |||
|
| 0,73 | 0,18 | |||||||
|
| |||||||||
| MI | GC | 70,53 | 18,44 | 86,50 | 14,83 | 15,97 | (−26,054 a 1,054) | 0,884 | 0,001 |
| IG | 68,13 | 12,88 | 81,45 | 12,05 | 13,32 | (−21,535 a −5,374) | |||
|
| 0,68 | 0,42 | |||||||
p < 0.05.
Figure 3The graphs showed the tendency of the variables over the time in both groups.
Results of Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST).
| How satisfied are you with these system features: | Scores |
|---|---|
| (1) The dimensions (size, height, length, width) of your assistive device? | 4,80 ± 0,41 |
| (2) The weight of your assistive device? | 4,87 ± 0,35 |
| (3) The easy in adjusting (fixing, fastening) the parts of your assistive device? | 4,87 ± 0,35 |
| (4) How safe and secure your assistive device is? | 5 ± 0,00 |
| (5) How easy it is to use your assistive device? | 4,60 ± 0,91 |
| (6) How comfortable your assistive device is? | 4,80 ± 0,41 |
| (7) How effective your assistive device is (the degree to which your device meets your needs)? | 4,27 ± 0,88 |
| Total satisfaction | 33,20 ± 2,17 |
Results of satisfaction survey.
| How satisfied are you with these system features: | Scores |
|---|---|
| The usability | 4,53 ± 0,74 |
| The dimensions | 4,87 ± 0,35 |
| The weight | 4,87 ± 0,35 |
| The easy adjustment of its parts | 4,87 ± 0,35 |
| The grade of comfort | 4,80 ± 0,41 |
| The instructions and comments offered | 3,60 ± 1,30 |
| The physical and psychological effort | 4,13 ± 0,92 |
| The security | 5 ± 0,00 |
| The necessary time to start-up | 4,80 ± 0,56 |
| The necessary time to perform the sessions | 4,60 ± 0,74 |
| The activities proposed by the systems are easy to perform | 4,20 ± 0,77 |
| The activities proposed by the systems are interesting and enjoyable | 4,73 ± 0,70 |
| The activities proposed by the systems are similar to my daily living activities | 2,93 ± 1,79 |
| The activities proposed by the systems are similar to my rehabilitation activities | 1,73 ± 2,02 |
| The user considers that the system can improve his/her independence in ADL | 3,73 ± 1,33 |
| The user is motivated and accept the use of the system | 4,07 ± 1,49 |
| The user would like to use the system in his/her daily rehabilitation program | 4,33 ± 1,05 |
| The user would recommend the use of the system to others | 4,87 ± 0,52 |
| The user consider that the system could be used as at home treatment (telerehabilitation) | 4,00 ± 2,07 |
| General total score that the user gives to the system | 4,13 ± 0,83 |
| Total satisfaction | 84,80 ± 8,80 |