Results provide the first available evidence from a controlled study that immersive VR can be an effective nonpharmacologic pain reduction technique for burn patients experiencing severe to excruciating pain during wound care. The potential applications of VR analgesia to other painful procedures (eg, movement or exercise therapy) and other pain populations are discussed.

This randomized, controlled, within-subjects (crossover design) study examined the effects of immersive virtual reality as an adjunctive analgesic technique for hospitalized pediatric burn inpatients undergoing painful physical therapy. Fifty-four subjects (6-19 years old) performed range-of-motion exercises under a therapist's direction for one to five days. During each session, subjects spent equivalent time in both the virtual reality and the control conditions (treatment order randomized and counterbalanced). Graphic rating scale scores assessing the sensory, affective, and cognitive components of pain were obtained for each treatment condition. Secondary outcomes assessed subjects' perception of the virtual reality experience and maximum range-of-motion. Results showed that on study day one, subjects reported significant decreases (27-44%) in pain ratings during virtual reality. They also reported improved affect ("fun") during virtual reality. The analgesia and affect improvements were maintained with repeated virtual reality use over multiple therapy sessions. Maximum range-of-motion was not different between treatment conditions, but was significantly greater after the second treatment condition (regardless of treatment order). These results suggest that immersive virtual reality is an effective nonpharmacologic, adjunctive pain reduction technique in the pediatric burn population undergoing painful rehabilitation therapy. The magnitude of the analgesic effect is clinically meaningful and is maintained with repeated use.

Few studies have empirically investigated the effects of immersive virtual reality (VR) on postburn physical therapy pain control and range of motion (ROM). We performed a prospective, randomized controlled study of the effects of adding VR to standard therapy in adults receiving active-assisted ROM physical therapy, by assessing pain scores and maximal joint ROM immediately before and after therapy on two consecutive days. Thirty-nine inpatients, aged 21 to 57 years (mean 35 years), with a mean TBSA burn of 18% (range, 3–60%) were studied using a within-subject, crossover design. All patients received their regular pretherapy pharmacologic analgesia regimen. During physical therapy sessions on two consecutive days (VR one day and no VR the other day; order randomized), each patient participated in active-assisted ROM exercises with an occupational or physical therapist. At the conclusion of each session, patients provided 0 to 100 Graphic Rating Scale measurements of pain after each 10-minute treatment condition. On the day with VR, patients wore a head-position-tracked, medical care environment-excluding VR helmet with stereophonic sound and interacted in a virtual environment conducive to burn care. ROM measurements for each joint exercised were recorded before and after each therapy session. Because of nonsignificant carryover and order effects, the data were analyzed using simple paired t-tests. VR reduced all Graphic Rating Scale pain scores (worst pain, time spent thinking about the pain, and pain unpleasantness by 27, 37, and 31% respectively), relative to the no VR condition. Average ROM improvement was slightly greater with the VR condition; however, this difference failed to reach clinical or statistical significance (P = .243). Ninety-seven percent of patients reported zero to mild nausea after the VR session. Immersive VR effectively reduced pain and did not impair ROM during postburn physical therapy. VR is easily used in the hospital setting and offers a safe, nonpharmacologic adjunctive analgesic treatment.

The pain associated with burn injuries is intense, unremitting and often exacerbated by anxiety, depression and other complicating patient factors. On top of this, modern burn care involves the repetitive performance – often on a daily basis for weeks to months – of painful and anxiety-provoking procedures that create additional treatment-related pain, such as wound care, dressing changes and rehabilitation activities. Pain management in burn patients is primarily achieved by potent pharmacologic analgesics (e.g., opioids), but is necessarily complemented by nonpharmacologic techniques, including distraction or hypnosis. Immersive virtual reality provides a particularly intense form of cognitive distraction during such brief, painful procedures, and has undergone preliminary study by several research groups treating burn patients over the past decade. Initial reports from these groups are consistent in suggesting that immersive virtual reality is logistically feasible, safe and effective in ameliorating the pain and anxiety experienced in various settings of post-burn pain. Furthermore, the technique appears applicable to a wide age range of patients and may be particularly well-adapted for use in children, one of the most challenging populations of burn victims to treat. However, confirmation and extension of these results in larger numbers of patients in various types of burn-related pain is necessary to more clearly define the specific benefits and limitations of virtual reality analgesia in the burn care setting.

Objective: We conducted a randomized controlled study to determine the effects of virtual reality (VR) distraction on pain and range of motion (ROM) in patients hospitalized for burn care during active physical therapy exercises. Method: Thirty-nine participants aged 15 to 66 (M = 36) years with significant burn injuries (mean burn size 14% TBSA) participated. Under therapist supervision, using a within-subjects design, participants performed unassisted active ROM exercises both with and without VR distraction in a randomized order. Therapists provided participants with instructions but did not physically assist with stretches. Maximum active ROM was measured using a goniometer. A 0 –100 Graphic Rating Scale (GRS) was used to assess the cognitive, affective, and sensory components of pain. A GRS rating of the amount of “fun” during stretching served as a measure of positive experience. Results: Participants reported lower mean GRS ratings during VR, relative to No VR, for worst pain, pain unpleasantness, and time spent thinking about pain. They also reported having a more positive experience during VR than during No VR. However, patients did not show greater ROM during VR. Conclusion: Immersive VR reduced pain during ROM exercises that were under the control of the patient.

This case report evaluates virtual reality hypnosis (VRH) in treating chronic neuropathic pain in a patient with a 5-year history of failed treatments. The patient participated in a 6-month trial of VRH, and her pain ratings of intensity and unpleasantness dropped on average 36% and 33%, respectively, over the course of 33 sessions. In addition, she reported both no pain and a reduction of pain for an average of 3.86 and 12.21 hours, respectively, after treatment sessions throughout the course of the VRH treatment. These reductions and the duration of treatment effects following VRH treatment were superior to those following a trial of standard hypnosis (non-VR) treatment. However, the pain reductions with VRH did not persist over long periods of time. The findings support the potential of VRH treatment for helping individuals with refractory chronic pain conditions. Hypnotic analgesia has become an increasingly important aspect in the treatment of clinical and experimental pain (Lang et al., 2000;Montgomery, DuHamel, & Redd, 2000) and has been used on virtually every type of pain (Patterson & Jensen, 2003). Patterson and Jensen reviewed 29 randomized, controlled studies of hypnotic analgesia and concluded that (a) the evidence supporting the efficacy of hypnotic analgesia is strong, and (b) hypnotizability is usually related to outcome in studies that measure this variable. With respect to the importance of hypnotizability, one potential strategy for increasing the impact of hypnosis is to make hypnotic induction less effortful. We hypothesized that by providing visual stimuli for a patient during hypnosis treatment and giving the patient an illusion of "sinking into a virtual world," the induction would require less concentration and mental effort from the patient and therefore might be more effective than standard hypnosis. As Patterson, Tininenko, Schmidt, and Sharar (2004) posited, using computer-generated stimuli to capture and to guide the patient's attention may not only make the induction less effortful but also more widely available, given that such a treatment would not require the presence of a clinician trained in hypnosis.

No abstract

This case series evaluated the use of virtual reality hypnosis (VRH) for the treatment of pain associated with multiple fractures from traumatic injuries. VRH treatment was administered on 2 consecutive days, and pain and anxiety were assessed each day before and after VRH treatment as well as on Day 3, which was 24 hours after the second treatment session. Pain reduction from baseline to Day 3 was from 70% to 30%, despite opioid analgesic use remaining stable. The subjective pain reduction reported by patients was encouraging, and the results of this case series suggest the importance of further study of VRH with larger samples using randomized controlled trials.