| Literature DB >> 29199193 |
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate the effects of virtual reality versus conventional physiotherapy on upper extremity function in children with obstetric brachial plexus injury.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29199193 PMCID: PMC5749040
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact ISSN: 1108-7161 Impact factor: 2.041
Figure 1Flow diagram of the study.
Figure 2Armeo® Spring System.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the participating children at baseline.
| Item | Group A (n= 20) | Group B (n= 20) | T-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||||
| 6.6±1.05 | 6.35±0.93 | 0.79 | 0.43 | ||
| 22.2±1.51 | 21.65±1.76 | 1.06 | 0.29 | ||
| 119.41±5.41 | 116.95±5.62 | 1.18 | 0.25 | ||
| Male | 14 | 13 | 67.5℅ | ||
| Female | 6 | 7 | 32.5℅ | ||
| Right | 13 | 12 | 62.5℅ | ||
| Left | 7 | 8 | 37.5℅ | ||
Level of significance at P<0.05;
Nonsignificant; SD: standard deviation.
Mallet system scores pre and post treatment mean values for group A and B.
| Item | Abduction | External rotation | Hand to neck | Hand to spine | Hand to mouth | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | |
| Group A | 3.2±0.77 | 4.00±0.46 | 2.65±0.49 | 3.25±0.44 | 2.65±0.49 | 3.25±0.44 | 2.35±0.49 | 3.15±0.59 | 2.40±0.50 | 3.00±0.46 |
| Group B | 3.00±0.56 | 4.35±0.49 | 2.35±0.59 | 4.00±0.65 | 2.45±0.51 | 3.85±0.49 | 2.40±0.50 | 3.90±0.55 | 2.65±0.49 | 4.00±0.73 |
| 0.31 | 0.29 | 0.98 | <0.001 | 0.21 | <0.001 | 0.75 | <0.001 | 0.12 | <0.001 | |
| Effect size | Cohen’s d= 0.74 | Cohen’s d= 1.35 | Cohen’s d= 1.29 | Cohen’s d= 1.31 | Cohen’s d= 1.64 | |||||
Level of significance at P<0.05;
Nonsignificant;
Significant.
Pre and post treatment mean values of abduction and external rotation range of motion (degrees) for group A and B.
| Item | Abduction ROM | External rotation ROM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-treatment | Post-treatment | Pre-treatment | Post-treatment | |
| 70.1±4.24 | 88.1±4.11 | 34.75±2.61 | 48±3.71 | |
| 71.25±2.88 | 110.8±6. 00 | 35.55±2.11 | 62.4±4.84 | |
| 0.32 | <0.001 | 0.29 | <0.001 | |
| Cohen’s d= 4.41 | Cohen’s d= 3.34 | |||
Level of significance at P<0.05;
Nonsignificant;
Significant.
Pre and post treatment mean values of abduction and external rotation isometric strength (Nm) for group A and B.
| Item | Abduction muscle strength | External rotation muscle strength | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-treatment | Post-treatment | Pre-treatment | Post-treatment | |
| 6.49±0.51 | 8.53±0.68 | 4.23±0.57 | 5.88±0.48 | |
| 6.68±0.89 | 11.3±1.08 | 4.4±0.64 | 7.45±0.81 | |
| 0.41 | <0.001 | 0.37 | <0.001 | |
| Cohen’s d= 3.06 | Cohen’s d= 2.35 | |||
Level of significance at P<0.05;
Nonsignificant;
Significant.