Kim Dockx1, Esther Mj Bekkers1, Veerle Van den Bergh1, Pieter Ginis1, Lynn Rochester2, Jeffrey M Hausdorff3, Anat Mirelman4, Alice Nieuwboer1. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Tervuursevest 101, Postbus 1501, Leuven, Belgium, 3001. 2. Institute for Ageing and Health, Newcastle University, Clinical Ageing Research Unit, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE4 5PL. 3. Center for the Study of Movement, Cognition and Morbility, Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, 64239. 4. Department of Neurology, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, 6 Weizmann Street, Tel Aviv, Israel, 64239.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that is best managed by a combination of medication and regular physiotherapy. In this context, virtual reality (VR) technology is proposed as a new rehabilitation tool with a possible added value over traditional physiotherapy approaches. It potentially optimises motor learning in a safe environment, and by replicating real-life scenarios could help improve functional activities of daily living. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to summarise the current best evidence for the effectiveness of VR interventions for the rehabilitation of people with PD in comparison with 1) active interventions, and 2) passive interventions. Our primary goal was to determine the effect of VR training on gait and balance. Secondary goals included examining the effects of VR on global motor function, activities of daily living, quality of life, cognitive function, exercise adherence, and the occurrence of adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We identified relevant articles through electronic searches of the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), online trials registers, and by handsearching reference lists. We carried out all searches up until 26 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of VR exercise interventions in people with PD. We included only trials where motor rehabilitation was the primary goal. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched for trials that corresponded to the predefined inclusion criteria. We independently extracted and assessed all data for methodological quality. A third review author was responsible for conflict resolution when required. MAIN RESULTS: We included 8 trials involving 263 people with PD in the review. Risk of bias was unclear or high for all but one of the included studies. Study sample sizes were small, and there was a large amount of heterogeneity between trials with regard to study design and the outcome measures used. As a result, we graded the quality of the evidence as low or very low. Most of the studies intended to improve motor function using commercially available devices, which were compared with physiotherapy. The interventions lasted for between 4 and 12 weeks.In comparison to physiotherapy, VR may lead to a moderate improvement in step and stride length (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 1.08; 3 studies; 106 participants; low-quality evidence). VR and physiotherapy interventions may have similar effects on gait (SMD 0.20, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.55; 4 studies; 129 participants; low-quality evidence), balance (SMD 0.34, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.71; 5 studies; 155 participants; low-quality evidence), and quality of life (mean difference 3.73 units, 95% CI -2.16 to 9.61; 4 studies; 106 participants). VR interventions did not lead to any reported adverse events, and exercise adherence did not differ between VR and other intervention arms.The evidence available comparing VR exercise with a passive control was more limited. The evidence for the main outcomes of interest was of very low quality due to the very small sample sizes of the two studies available for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-quality evidence of a positive effect of short-term VR exercise on step and stride length. VR and physiotherapy may have similar effects on gait, balance, and quality of life. The evidence available comparing VR with passive control interventions was more limited. Additional high-quality, large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.
BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that is best managed by a combination of medication and regular physiotherapy. In this context, virtual reality (VR) technology is proposed as a new rehabilitation tool with a possible added value over traditional physiotherapy approaches. It potentially optimises motor learning in a safe environment, and by replicating real-life scenarios could help improve functional activities of daily living. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to summarise the current best evidence for the effectiveness of VR interventions for the rehabilitation of people with PD in comparison with 1) active interventions, and 2) passive interventions. Our primary goal was to determine the effect of VR training on gait and balance. Secondary goals included examining the effects of VR on global motor function, activities of daily living, quality of life, cognitive function, exercise adherence, and the occurrence of adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We identified relevant articles through electronic searches of the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), online trials registers, and by handsearching reference lists. We carried out all searches up until 26 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of VR exercise interventions in people with PD. We included only trials where motor rehabilitation was the primary goal. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched for trials that corresponded to the predefined inclusion criteria. We independently extracted and assessed all data for methodological quality. A third review author was responsible for conflict resolution when required. MAIN RESULTS: We included 8 trials involving 263 people with PD in the review. Risk of bias was unclear or high for all but one of the included studies. Study sample sizes were small, and there was a large amount of heterogeneity between trials with regard to study design and the outcome measures used. As a result, we graded the quality of the evidence as low or very low. Most of the studies intended to improve motor function using commercially available devices, which were compared with physiotherapy. The interventions lasted for between 4 and 12 weeks.In comparison to physiotherapy, VR may lead to a moderate improvement in step and stride length (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 1.08; 3 studies; 106 participants; low-quality evidence). VR and physiotherapy interventions may have similar effects on gait (SMD 0.20, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.55; 4 studies; 129 participants; low-quality evidence), balance (SMD 0.34, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.71; 5 studies; 155 participants; low-quality evidence), and quality of life (mean difference 3.73 units, 95% CI -2.16 to 9.61; 4 studies; 106 participants). VR interventions did not lead to any reported adverse events, and exercise adherence did not differ between VR and other intervention arms.The evidence available comparing VR exercise with a passive control was more limited. The evidence for the main outcomes of interest was of very low quality due to the very small sample sizes of the two studies available for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-quality evidence of a positive effect of short-term VR exercise on step and stride length. VR and physiotherapy may have similar effects on gait, balance, and quality of life. The evidence available comparing VR with passive control interventions was more limited. Additional high-quality, large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Authors: José Eduardo Pompeu; Felipe Augusto Dos Santos Mendes; Keyte Guedes da Silva; Alexandra Modenesi Lobo; Tatiana de Paula Oliveira; Andrea Peterson Zomignani; Maria Elisa Pimentel Piemonte Journal: Physiotherapy Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 3.358
Authors: Maarten R C van den Heuvel; Gert Kwakkel; Peter J Beek; Henk W Berendse; Andreas Daffertshofer; Erwin E H van Wegen Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: Maarten R C van den Heuvel; Erwin E H van Wegen; Cees J T de Goede; Ingrid A L Burgers-Bots; Peter J Beek; Andreas Daffertshofer; Gert Kwakkel Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 2.474