Lloréns Roberto, Noé Enrique, Colomer Carolina, Alcañiz Mariano
Instituto Interuniversitario de Investigación en Bioingeniería y Tecnología Orientada al Ser Humano, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain; Servicio de Neurorrehabilitación y Daño Cerebral de los Hospitales NISA, Fundación Hospitales NISA, Valencia, Spain.
Servicio de Neurorrehabilitación y Daño Cerebral de los Hospitales NISA, Fundación Hospitales NISA, Valencia, Spain.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Mar;96(3):418-425.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.10.019. Epub 2014 Nov 13.
First, to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a virtual reality (VR)-based telerehabilitation program in the balance recovery of individuals with hemiparesis after stroke in comparison with an in-clinic program; second, to compare the subjective experiences; and third, to contrast the costs of both programs.
Single-blind, randomized, controlled trial.
Neurorehabilitation unit.
Chronic outpatients with stroke (N=30) with residual hemiparesis.
Twenty 45-minute training sessions with the telerehabilitation system, conducted 3 times a week, in the clinic or in the home.
First, Berg Balance Scale for balance assessment. The Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment balance and gait subscales, and the Brunel Balance Assessment were secondary outcome measures. Clinical assessments were conducted at baseline, 8 weeks (posttreatment), and 12 weeks (follow-up). Second, the System Usability Scale and the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory for subjective experiences. Third, cost (in dollars).
Significant improvement in both groups (in-clinic group [control] and a home-based telerehabilitation group) from the initial to the final assessment in the Berg Balance Scale (ηp(2)=.68; P=.001), in the balance (ηp(2)=.24; P=.006) and gait (ηp(2)=.57, P=.001) subscales of the Tinetti Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment, and in the Brunel Balance Assessment (control: χ(2)=15.0; P=.002; experimental: χ(2)=21.9; P=.001). No significant differences were found between the groups in any balance scale or in the feedback questionnaires. With regard to subjective experiences, both groups considered the VR system similarly usable and motivating. The in-clinic intervention resulted in more expenses than did the telerehabilitation intervention ($654.72 per person).
First, VR-based telerehabilitation interventions can promote the reacquisition of locomotor skills associated with balance in the same way as do in-clinic interventions, both complemented with a conventional therapy program; second, the usability of and motivation to use the 2 interventions can be similar; and third, telerehabilitation interventions can involve savings that vary depending on each scenario.
第一,评估基于虚拟现实(VR)的远程康复计划与门诊康复计划相比,对中风后偏瘫患者平衡恢复的临床效果;第二,比较主观体验;第三,对比两种计划的成本。
单盲、随机、对照试验。
神经康复科。
患有残余偏瘫的慢性中风门诊患者(N = 30)。
使用远程康复系统进行20次45分钟的训练课程,每周进行3次,可在诊所或家中进行。
第一,使用伯格平衡量表进行平衡评估。以性能为导向的移动性评估平衡和步态子量表以及布鲁内尔平衡评估为次要结局指标。在基线、8周(治疗后)和12周(随访)时进行临床评估。第二,使用系统可用性量表和内在动机量表评估主观体验。第三,成本(以美元计)。
在伯格平衡量表中,两组(门诊组[对照组]和家庭远程康复组)从初始评估到最终评估均有显著改善(ηp(2)=.68;P =.001),在Tinetti以性能为导向的移动性评估的平衡(ηp(2)=.24;P =.006)和步态(ηp(2)=.57,P =.001)子量表以及布鲁内尔平衡评估中也有显著改善(对照组:χ(2)=15.0;P =.002;试验组:χ(2)=21.9;P =.001)。在任何平衡量表或反馈问卷中,两组之间均未发现显著差异。关于主观体验,两组对VR系统的可用性和激励性评价相似。门诊干预的费用比远程康复干预更高(每人65**4.72美元)。
第一,基于VR的远程康复干预与门诊干预一样,可以促进与平衡相关的运动技能的重新获得,两者均辅以传统治疗计划;第二,两种干预措施的可用性和使用动机可能相似;第三,远程康复干预可以节省费用,具体节省金额因具体情况而异。