| Literature DB >> 35627554 |
Marek Zak1, Tomasz Sikorski2, Szymon Krupnik3, Magdalena Wasik2, Katarzyna Grzanka2, Daniel Courteix4, Frederic Dutheil5,6, Waldemar Brola1.
Abstract
Modern technologies are presently harnessed in response to a complex challenge of providing physiotherapeutic management in older adults. Fully immersive virtual reality (VR) solutions are acknowledged to viably enhance the overall effectiveness of traditional physiotherapeutic methods. A total of 60 community-dwelling older adults (over 75 years of age) were recruited for the study protocol. They were subsequently randomly split into four equally sized study groups (VR, CVR, OCULUS, and the classic programme group (OTAGO), and the physiotherapy sessions were pursued in the subjects' homes for 3 weeks, 3 times a week, for 30 min in each group. At the first measurement point, respective study groups differed significantly in functional performance, as expressed in gait (POMA G) and individual static balance. The post hoc analysis indicated significantly higher scores in POMA G for the classic programme group vs. the results of the VR and CVR groups. On the other hand, the OCULUS group held significantly higher scores in individual balance and TUG, as compared to the other groups (p < 0.001). Making use of a virtual reality (VR) environment in the physiotherapeutic management of community-dwelling older adults appreciably enhanced individual functional performance, especially in terms of static balance. Physiotherapy management aided by VR technology solutions offers a viable alternative to traditional physiotherapeutic regimens (e.g., OTAGO programme) in enhancing individual functional performance. The innovatively self-designed VIRTUAL REALITY COMPREHENSIVE REHABILITATION ROOMS (VRCRR) solution may help out in pursuing a complex physiotherapy programme on an individual basis within one's own home environment.Entities:
Keywords: OTAGO programme; elderly; exergaming; fall risk; rehabilitation strategies; seniors; telerehabilitation; virtual reality (VR) technology
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35627554 PMCID: PMC9141836 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19106018
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Characteristics of respective study groups.
| Group | Group Classic Programme | Group VR | Group CVR | Group OCULUS | ANOVA KW | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement |
| SD |
| SD |
| SD |
| SD | F(3) |
|
| Age [years] | 76.66 | 1.63 | 76.66 | 1.5 | 78.06 | 3.73 | 79.13 | 3.56 | 9.6 | 0.08 |
| Body weight [kg] | 72.86 | 13.7 | 71.2 | 12.75 | 70.2 | 10.3 | 71 | 10.74 | 0.24 | 0.99 |
| Height [cm] | 1.66 | 1.82 | 1.67 | 1.85 | 1.63 | 1.74 | 1.65 | 1.8 | 1.35 | 0.90 |
| BMI [kg/m2] | 26.25 | 3.47 | 25.32 | 2.22 | 26.33 | 4.04 | 26.03 | 4.07 | 1.93 | 0.97 |
| Education (%) | χ2 |
| ||||||||
| Primary | 46.7 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 40 | 3.75 | 0.74 | ||||
| Vocational | 13.3 | 20 | 40 | 26.7 | 3.11 | 0.84 | ||||
| Secondary | 26.7 | 26.7 | 13.3 | 33.3 | 1.68 | 0.98 | ||||
| Higher | 6.7 | 0 | 0 | 6.7 | 2.06 | 0.96 | ||||
| Falls sustained within the last year (YES, %) | 20 | 6.7 | 46.7 | 46.7 | 8.57 | 0.03 | ||||
| Number of medications taken regularly | 5.13 | 4.46 | 3.33 | 3.53 | 7.19 | 0.28 | ||||
| MMSE (pts) | 26.33 | 27.53 | 27.8 (1.52) | 28.26 | 8.59 | 0.16 | ||||
| GDS-15 (pts) | 4.42 | 4.67 | 4.73 (1.71) | 5.33 | 1.39 | 0.99 | ||||
| IADL (pts) | 18.33 | 19.73 | 19.26 (1.38) | 20.26 | 6.76 | 0.08 | ||||
| BBS (pts) | 39.33 | 40.33 | 40 (4.05) | 40.53 | 2.42 | 0.96 | ||||
Abbreviations: —mean, SD—standard deviation, KW—Kruskal–Wallis test, χ2—Pearson chi-square test, BMI—body mass index, MMSE—mini-mental state examination, GDS-15—geriatric depression scale—15 items, IADL—instrumental activities of daily living, BBS—Berg balance scale.
Figure 1Recruitment process and the sizes of respective study groups.
Figure 2Therapy session aided by Carl Zeiss VR ONE plus device.
Figure 3VIRTUAL REALITY COMPREHENSIVE REHABILITATION ROOMS—(VRCRR)—an area where the physiotherapy intervention was carried out in the study subjects, assisted throughout by the attending physiotherapist.
Figure 4Spatial view of the VIRTUAL REALITY COMPREHENSIVE REHABILITATION ROOMS (VRCRR).
Figure 5Room no. 2 designed for a scope of aerobic activities.
Figure 6Room no. 3 designed for static and dynamic balance exercises.
Figure 7Room no. 4 designed for a scope of dual-task activities.
Figure 8The VR-based intervention making use of the Oculus goggles, assisted by a physiotherapist.
Functional performance per respective study groups, as noted at the first measurement point.
| Group | Group Classic Programme | Group VR | Group CVR | Group | ANOVA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement |
| SD |
| SD |
| SD |
| SD | F(3) |
|
| TUG [s] | 13.29 | 0.97 | 13.51 | 0.99 | 14.75 | 2.49 | 15.61 | 1.72 | 14.29 | 0.01 |
| TUGCog [s] | 15.85 | 1.2 | 16.45 | 1.61 | 20.59 | 8.38 | 19.04 | 6.94 | 3.77 | 0.81 |
| TUGMan [s] | 13.62 | 1.18 | 13.36 | 1.14 | 13.48 | 1.61 | 13.98 | 1.95 | 0.42 | 0.93 |
| 10MW [m/s] | 1.06 | 0.04 | 1.07 | 0.06 | 1.06 | 0.11 | 1.07 | 0.08 | 0.23 | 0.97 |
| POMA B [pts] | 10.66 | 0.9 | 10.6 | 1.12 | 10.53 | 1.06 | 10.4 | 0.73 | 0.61 | 0.89 |
| POMA G [pts] | 9.6 | 0.63 | 7.73 | 1.33 | 7.8 | 1.20 | 8.26 | 1.1 | 21.47 | <0.001 |
| POMA Total [pts] | 20.26 | 1.03 | 18.33 | 1.63 | 18.33 | 1.49 | 18.66 | 1.29 | 17.75 | 0.002 |
| TMTA [s] | 66.7 | 10.36 | 66.32 | 12.67 | 71.81 | 13.67 | 69.23 | 12.58 | 2.19 | 0.97 |
| TMTB [s] | 148.83 | 25.27 | 141.62 | 20.7 | 134.4 | 25.79 | 146.7 | 21.56 | 3.45 | 0.86 |
| SLS OP [s] | 5.35 | 1.37 | 5.61 | 2.45 | 20.2 | 17.27 | 14.39 | 4.15 | 33.96 | <0.001 |
| SLS CL [s] | 1.451 | 0.74 | 1.18 | 1.36 | 4.05 | 5.31 | 8.45 | 1.79 | 30.99 | <0.001 |
| 2MS [number of lifts] | 55.2 | 16.69 | 60.4 | 13.56 | 53.13 | 11.37 | 60.86 | 11.3 | 3.32 | 0.87 |
Abbreviations: —mean, SD—standard deviation, KW—Kruskal–Wallis test, TUG—timed up and go, TUGCog—timed up and go cognitive, TUGMan—timed up and go manual, 10 MW—10-m walk test, Poma B—balance, Poma G—gait, Poma Total—Tinetti performance-oriented mobility assessment, TMT A—trail-making test A, TMT B—trail-making test B, SLS OP—single-leg stance open eyes, SLS CL—single-leg stance closed eyes, 2MS—two-minute step test.
Functional performance per respective study groups, as noted at the Second Measurement Point.
| Group | Group Classic Programme | Group VR | Group CVR | Group | ANOVA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement |
| SD |
| SD |
| SD |
| SD | F(3) |
|
| TUG [s] | 11.89 | 0.8 | 12.65 | 1.01 | 14.19 | 2.52 | 14.42 | 1.81 | 19.3 | 0.001 |
| TUGCog [s] | 15.07 | 1.03 | 15.53 | 1.5 | 19.66 | 7.94 | 17.55 | 6.32 | 1.71 | 0.63 |
| TUGMan [s] | 12.41 | 0.92 | 13.13 | 2.03 | 12.87 | 1.43 | 12.4 | 1.46 | 2.24 | 0.97 |
| 10MW [m/s] | 1.13 | 0.05 | 1.08 | 0.07 | 1.1 | 0.09 | 1.10 | 0.08 | 3.87 | 0.8 |
| BBS [pts] | 41 | 1.13 | 41.33 | 1.44 | 40.6 | 4.13 | 41.26 | 10.73 | 1.91 | 0.98 |
| POMA B [pts] | 11.06 | 0.79 | 11.06 | 0.88 | 10.86 | 0.99 | 10.73 | 0.59 | 1.73 | 0.99 |
| POMA G [pts] | 9.73 | 0.45 | 8.26 | 1.43 | 8.93 | 1.28 | 9.06 | 0.79 | 11.42 | 0.04 |
| POMA Total [pts] | 20.86 | 0.83 | 19.46 | 1.30 | 19.8 | 1.56 | 19.8 | 1.01 | 10.34 | 0.07 |
| TMTA [s] | 62.94 | 8.98 | 58.72 | 9.4 | 69.90 | 11.65 | 65.40 | 10.11 | 8.33 | 0.18 |
| TMTB [s] | 140.43 | 23.54 | 122 | 20.60 | 127.62 | 21.94 | 135.23 | 20.15 | 5.10 | 0.59 |
| SLS OP [s] | 6.70 | 1.89 | 5.75 | 2.68 | 24.98 | 18.49 | 16.44 | 2.69 | 41.77 | <0.001 |
| SLS CL [s] | 1.55 | 0.75 | 1.46 | 1.51 | 5.06 | 5.21 | 9.26 | 1.94 | 33.04 | <0.001 |
| 2MS [number of lifts] | 58.6 | 16.25 | 64.6 | 12.84 | 56.6 | 11.77 | 64.06 | 11.24 | 4.02 | 0.25 |
Abbreviations: —mean, SD—standard deviation, KW—Kruskal–Wallis test, TUG—timed up and go, TUGCog—timed up and go cognitive, TUGMan—timed up and go manual, 10 MW—10-m walk test, BBS—Berg balance scale, Poma B—balance, Poma G—gait, Poma Total—Tinetti performance-oriented mobility assessment, TMT A—trail-making test A, TMT B—trail-making test B, SLS OP—single-leg stance open eyes, SLS CL—single-leg stance closed eyes, 2MS—two minute step test.
The differences in the tests specifically addressing balance, as noted between respective measurement points.
| Group | Group Classic | Group VR | Group CVR | Group OCULUS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement |
| SD |
| SD |
| SD |
| SD |
| BBS [pts] | −1.67 | −0.21 | −1 | −0.22 | −0.6 | 0.08 | −0.73 | 6.24 |
| POMA B [pts] | −0.11 | −0.1 | −1.07 * | −0.23 | 0.3 * | −0.07 | 0.31 * | −0.14 |
| POMA G [pts] | −1.7 | −0.17 | −0.5 | 0.1 | −1.1 | 0.07 | −0.31 | −0.30 |
| POMA Total [pts] | −0.6 | −0.19 | −1.1 ** | −0.33 | −1.5 ** | 0.07 | −1.1 ** | −0.27 |
| SLS OP [s] | −0.51 | 0.55 | −0.1 | 0.22 | −2.1 *** | 1.21 | 2.1 *** | −1.46 |
Abbreviations: —mean, SD—standard deviation, BBS—Berg balance scale, Poma B—balance, Poma G—gait, Poma Total—Tinetti performance-oriented mobility assessment, SLS OP—single-leg stance open eyes, t—Student t-test. POMA G * t = 14.43, * p < 0.0001 C vs. VR, t = 5.98, p < 0.0001 C vs. CVR, * t = 4.42, p = 0.0001 C vs. OCULUS. POMA total ** t = 5.01, p < 0.0001 C vs. VR, t = 16.47, p < 0.0001 C vs. CVR, t = 5.67, p < 0.0001 C vs. OCULUS. SLS OP *** t = 4.59, p = 0.0001 C vs. CVR, t = 3.94, p = 0.0005 C vs. OCULUS.