Iris Brunner1, Jan Sture Skouen2, Håkon Hofstad2, Jörg Aßmus2, Frank Becker2, Anne-Marthe Sanders2, Hanne Pallesen2, Lola Qvist Kristensen2, Marc Michielsen2, Liselot Thijs2, Geert Verheyden2. 1. From the University of Bergen (I.B., J.S.S.), Norway; Department of Clinical Medicine (I.B.), University of Aarhus, Denmark; Haukeland University Hospital (J.S.S., H.H.); Competence Center for Clinical Research (J.A.), Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen; Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital (F.B., A.-M.S.), Nesoddtangen; Department of Clinical Medicine (F.B.), University of Oslo, Norway; Hammel Neurorehabilitation Center and University Research Clinic (H.P.); Neurorehabilitation Skive (L.Q.K.), Hammel Neurorehabilitation Center and University Research Clinic, Skive, Denmark; Jessa Hospitals (M.M., L.T.), Herk-de-Stad; and KU Leuven (G.V.), Belgium. Iris.Brunner@rm.dk. 2. From the University of Bergen (I.B., J.S.S.), Norway; Department of Clinical Medicine (I.B.), University of Aarhus, Denmark; Haukeland University Hospital (J.S.S., H.H.); Competence Center for Clinical Research (J.A.), Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen; Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital (F.B., A.-M.S.), Nesoddtangen; Department of Clinical Medicine (F.B.), University of Oslo, Norway; Hammel Neurorehabilitation Center and University Research Clinic (H.P.); Neurorehabilitation Skive (L.Q.K.), Hammel Neurorehabilitation Center and University Research Clinic, Skive, Denmark; Jessa Hospitals (M.M., L.T.), Herk-de-Stad; and KU Leuven (G.V.), Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of upper extremity virtual reality rehabilitation training (VR) to time-matched conventional training (CT) in the subacute phase after stroke. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, single-blind phase III multicenter trial, 120 participants with upper extremity motor impairment within 12 weeks after stroke were consecutively included at 5 rehabilitation institutions. Participants were randomized to either VR or CT as an adjunct to standard rehabilitation and stratified according to mild to moderate or severe hand paresis, defined as ≥20 degrees wrist and 10 degrees finger extension or less, respectively. The training comprised a minimum of sixteen 60-minute sessions over 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT); secondary outcome measures were the Box and Blocks Test and Functional Independence Measure. Patients were assessed at baseline, after intervention, and at the 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Mean time from stroke onset for the VR group was 35 (SD 21) days and for the CT group was 34 (SD 19) days. There were no between-group differences for any of the outcome measures. Improvement of upper extremity motor function assessed with ARAT was similar at the postintervention (p = 0.714) and follow-up (p = 0.777) assessments. Patients in VR improved 12 (SD 11) points from baseline to the postintervention assessment and 17 (SD 13) points from baseline to follow-up, while patients in CT improved 13 (SD 10) and 17 (SD 13) points, respectively. Improvement was also similar for our subgroup analysis with mild to moderate and severe upper extremity paresis. CONCLUSIONS: Additional upper extremity VR training was not superior but equally as effective as additional CT in the subacute phase after stroke. VR may constitute a motivating training alternative as a supplement to standard rehabilitation. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02079103. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with upper extremity motor impairment after stroke, compared to conventional training, VR training did not lead to significant differences in upper extremity function improvement.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of upper extremity virtual reality rehabilitation training (VR) to time-matched conventional training (CT) in the subacute phase after stroke. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, single-blind phase III multicenter trial, 120 participants with upper extremity motor impairment within 12 weeks after stroke were consecutively included at 5 rehabilitation institutions. Participants were randomized to either VR or CT as an adjunct to standard rehabilitation and stratified according to mild to moderate or severe hand paresis, defined as ≥20 degrees wrist and 10 degrees finger extension or less, respectively. The training comprised a minimum of sixteen 60-minute sessions over 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT); secondary outcome measures were the Box and Blocks Test and Functional Independence Measure. Patients were assessed at baseline, after intervention, and at the 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Mean time from stroke onset for the VR group was 35 (SD 21) days and for the CT group was 34 (SD 19) days. There were no between-group differences for any of the outcome measures. Improvement of upper extremity motor function assessed with ARAT was similar at the postintervention (p = 0.714) and follow-up (p = 0.777) assessments. Patients in VR improved 12 (SD 11) points from baseline to the postintervention assessment and 17 (SD 13) points from baseline to follow-up, while patients in CT improved 13 (SD 10) and 17 (SD 13) points, respectively. Improvement was also similar for our subgroup analysis with mild to moderate and severe upper extremity paresis. CONCLUSIONS: Additional upper extremity VR training was not superior but equally as effective as additional CT in the subacute phase after stroke. VR may constitute a motivating training alternative as a supplement to standard rehabilitation. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02079103. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with upper extremity motor impairment after stroke, compared to conventional training, VR training did not lead to significant differences in upper extremity function improvement.
Authors: Mary Ellen Stoykov; Olivia M Biller; Alexandra Wax; Erin King; Jacob M Schauer; Louis F Fogg; Daniel M Corcos Journal: Trials Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Helen Rodgers; Helen Bosomworth; Hermano I Krebs; Frederike van Wijck; Denise Howel; Nina Wilson; Tracy Finch; Natasha Alvarado; Laura Ternent; Cristina Fernandez-Garcia; Lydia Aird; Sreeman Andole; David L Cohen; Jesse Dawson; Gary A Ford; Richard Francis; Steven Hogg; Niall Hughes; Christopher I Price; Duncan L Turner; Luke Vale; Scott Wilkes; Lisa Shaw Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Alexander W Dromerick; Shashwati Geed; Jessica Barth; Kathaleen Brady; Margot L Giannetti; Abigail Mitchell; Matthew A Edwardson; Ming T Tan; Yizhao Zhou; Elissa L Newport; Dorothy F Edwards Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Corina Schuster-Amft; Kynan Eng; Zorica Suica; Irene Thaler; Sandra Signer; Isabelle Lehmann; Ludwig Schmid; Michael A McCaskey; Miura Hawkins; Martin L Verra; Daniel Kiper Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 3.240