BMJ open · 2026
Feasibility and efficacy of virtual reality rehabilitation for upper extremity impairment in ischaemic stroke patients: an open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sylaja Padmavathy Narayanapillai, Pr Srijithesh, Paul Rinta, Chakravarthy Srinivasa, Sinha Aniruddha, Bapi Raju Surampudi, Kesavadas Chandrasekharan, Bharath Rose Dawn, Sarma P S, Elango Sundari, Hafsath Shabeera, Darshini Divya, F Amal Jude Ashwin, Dhasan Aneesh, Sambath Siva, Amal M G, R S Arathy, Akhil S, Devan H S, Anjana Madhu M V, S Shawn Esther, Ambikapathy Ruby, Shaji Shradha, Raja Pritam, Gupta Anupam, Kulkarni Girish Baburao
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The study evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of a non-immersive virtual reality (VR) system on upper extremity (UE) recovery in ischaemic stroke patients in comparison to a conventional physiotherapy.
DESIGN: An open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial randomly assigned the participants to two groups, VR intervention or conventional physiotherapy.
SETTING: Two tertiary stroke care centres in South India participated in the study.
PARTICIPANTS: Sixty first-ever ischaemic stroke patients (1-6 months of stroke onset) having spasticity grades of 1 or 1+ as per Modified Ashworth scale and Brunnstrom recovery stages of 3, 4 or 5 in the UE were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.
INTERVENTION: High-intensity non-immersive VR-based comprehensive rehabilitation gaming system with a duration of 12 weeks (3 days/week) was compared with equally intensive conventional physiotherapy.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The feasibility outcome was the compliance with the treatment. The primary efficacy outcome was the improvement in the motor function assessed by the Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) and Wolf motor function test (WMFT). The secondary outcomes included the performance in activities of daily living by the Barthel index (BI) and the quality of life by the 36-item short form health survey (SF-36).
RESULTS: The treatment compliance was similar in two groups (p=0.19). Both groups improved in motor performance, activities of daily living and quality of life. However, there were no significant differences in the FMA (p=0.58), WMFT (functional ability scale, p=0.33; performance time, p=0.44), BI (p=0.84) and SF-36 (physical, p=0.87; mental, p=0.99) scores between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The non-immersive VR system was feasible, effective and safe; however, it was not found to be superior to conventional physiotherapy. The trial was stopped early and did not reach its proposed sample size and hence, the findings are to be interpreted cautiously.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical trial registry India: CTRI/2021/11/038339 (https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?EncHid=NTc1OTI=&Enc=&userName=CTRI/2021/11/038339).
DESIGN: An open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial randomly assigned the participants to two groups, VR intervention or conventional physiotherapy.
SETTING: Two tertiary stroke care centres in South India participated in the study.
PARTICIPANTS: Sixty first-ever ischaemic stroke patients (1-6 months of stroke onset) having spasticity grades of 1 or 1+ as per Modified Ashworth scale and Brunnstrom recovery stages of 3, 4 or 5 in the UE were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.
INTERVENTION: High-intensity non-immersive VR-based comprehensive rehabilitation gaming system with a duration of 12 weeks (3 days/week) was compared with equally intensive conventional physiotherapy.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The feasibility outcome was the compliance with the treatment. The primary efficacy outcome was the improvement in the motor function assessed by the Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) and Wolf motor function test (WMFT). The secondary outcomes included the performance in activities of daily living by the Barthel index (BI) and the quality of life by the 36-item short form health survey (SF-36).
RESULTS: The treatment compliance was similar in two groups (p=0.19). Both groups improved in motor performance, activities of daily living and quality of life. However, there were no significant differences in the FMA (p=0.58), WMFT (functional ability scale, p=0.33; performance time, p=0.44), BI (p=0.84) and SF-36 (physical, p=0.87; mental, p=0.99) scores between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The non-immersive VR system was feasible, effective and safe; however, it was not found to be superior to conventional physiotherapy. The trial was stopped early and did not reach its proposed sample size and hence, the findings are to be interpreted cautiously.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical trial registry India: CTRI/2021/11/038339 (https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?EncHid=NTc1OTI=&Enc=&userName=CTRI/2021/11/038339).