| Literature DB >> 31888293 |
Mohd Azzuan Ahmad1, Devinder Kaur Ajit Singh2, Nor Azlin Mohd Nordin1, Khor Hooi Nee1, Norliza Ibrahim3.
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) games has the potential to improve patient outcomes in stroke rehabilitation. However, there is limited information on VR games as an adjunct to standard physiotherapy in improving upper limb function. This study involved 36 participants in both experimental (n = 18) and control (n = 18) groups with a mean age (SD) of 57 (8.20) and 63 (10.54) years, respectively. Outcome measures were the Fugl-Meyer assessment for upper extremities (FMA-UE), Wolf motor function test (WMFT), intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI), Lawton of instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and stroke impact scale (SIS) assessed at pre-post intervention. The experimental group had 0.5 h of upper limb (UL) VR games with 1.5 h of standard physiotherapy, and the control group received 2 h of standard physiotherapy. The intervention for both groups was performed once a week for eight consecutive weeks. The results showed a significant time-group interaction effect for IMI (p = 0.001), Lawton IADL (p = 0.01) and SIS domain of communication (p = 0.03). A significant time effect was found in FMA-UE (p = 0.001), WMFT (p = 0.001), Lawton IADL (p = 0.01), and SIS domains; strength, ADL and stroke recovery (p < 0.05). These results indicated an improvement in UL motor ability, sensory function, instrumental ADL, and quality of life in both groups after eight weeks of intervention. However, no significant (p > 0.05) group effect on all the outcome measures was demonstrated. Thus, replacing a portion of standard physiotherapy time with VR games was equally effective in improving UL function and general health compared to receiving only standard physiotherapy among stroke survivors.Entities:
Keywords: function; physiotherapy; stroke; upper limb; virtual reality games
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31888293 PMCID: PMC6950522 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16245144
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Flow chart of the study with number of participants. FMA-UE, Fugl-Meyer assessment for upper extremities; WMFT, Wolf motor function test; IMI, intrinsic motivation inventory; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; SIS, stroke impact scale; VR, virtual reality; SPSS, statistic product for statistical solutions.
Baseline characteristics of participants.
| Variable | Experimental | Control | Analysis of Covariance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
| Gender (male/female) | 17/1 | 14/4 | |
| Age (years) | 57.00 (8.203) | 62.94 (10.54) | 0.07 |
| Post stroke duration (months) | 10.56 (5.26) | 10.72 (6.03) | 0.93 |
| Affected side (left/right) | 11/7 | 9/9 | 0.50 |
All data as mean (standard deviation) with a p-value for ANCOVA except for affected side (left/right) with p-value for Chi-squared test. Statistically significant, p < 0.05.
Main effect of time, group, and time–group interaction of the interventions on the outcome measures.
| Parameters | Study Group | Analysis of Covariance ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Control | Time | Group | Interaction | |
|
| |||||
| Week 0 | 57.44 (10.17) | 56.50 (8.18) | 0.001 * | 0.50 | 0.23 |
| Week 8 | 65.94 (7.57) | 63.22 (6.98) | |||
|
| |||||
| Week 0 | 46.00 (10.99) | 44.11 (7.64) | 0.001 * | 0.38 | 0.17 |
| Week 8 | 53.61 (10.35) | 50.05 (7.55) | |||
|
| |||||
| Week 0 | 126.94 (11.40) | 118.22 (8.35) | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.001 * |
| Week 8 | 120.50 (10.00) | 120.50 (8.37) | |||
|
| |||||
| Week 0 | 4.28 (2.22) | 2.78 (1.00) | 0.01 * | 0.77 | 0.01 * |
| Week 8 | 4.56 (1.98) | 3.00 (1.03) | |||
|
| |||||
|
| 0.00 * | 1.00 | 0.16 | ||
| Week 0 | 57.29 (15.93) | 63.54 (12.91) | |||
| Week 8 | 62.50 (11.94) | 68.75 (13.89) | |||
|
| 0.05 | 0.34 | 0.21 | ||
| Week 0 | 87.91 (14.24) | 82.94 (11.39) | |||
| Week 8 | 90.96 (11.39) | 84.02 (15.32) | |||
|
| 0.78 | 0.57 | 0.34 | ||
| Week 0 | 83.97 (12.92) | 80.40 (13.46) | |||
| Week 8 | 84.79 (12.29) | 80.13 (13.37) | |||
|
| 0.13 | 0.51 | 0.03 * | ||
| Week 0 | 94.84 (8.85) | 84.92 (17.70) | |||
| Week 8 | 95.64 (9.05) | 86.91 (14.13) | |||
|
| |||||
| Week 0 | 84.32 (12.05) | 77.41 (11.11) | 0.001 * | 0.67 | 0.06 |
| Week 8 | 86.68 (10.31) | 79.23 (11.11) | |||
|
| |||||
| Week 0 | 85.34 (10.52) | 80.86 (15.06) | 0.06 | 0.82 | 0.25 |
| Week 8 | 87.50 (6.95) | 82.56 (15.12) | |||
|
| |||||
| Week 0 | 68.61 (27.64) | 66.11 (22.59) | 0.77 | 0.77 | 0.79 |
| Week 8 | 68.61 (27.80) | 66.67 (22.10) | |||
|
| |||||
| Week 0 | 74.31 (16.31) | 68.58 (18.44) | 0.74 | 0.19 | 0.45 |
| Week 8 | 72.63 (17.95) | 69.59 (16.47) | |||
|
| |||||
| Week 0 | 68.61 (12.70) | 61.67 (9.85) | 0.001 * | 0.45 | 0.09 |
| Week 8 | 73.89 (10.37) | 68.33 (11.38) | |||
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation. ηp2, partial eta squared; FMA-UE, Fugl-Meyer assessment for upper extremities; WMFT, Wolf motor function test; IMI, intrinsic motivation inventory; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; SIS, stroke impact scale. Statistically significant, * p < 0.05 by repeated measure ANOVA.
Figure 2Percentage of improvement for the outcome measures after eight weeks of intervention. FMA-UE, Fugl-Meyer assessment for upper extremities; WMFT, Wolf motor function test; IMI, intrinsic motivation inventory; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; SIS, stroke impact scale.