Study on the Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Game-Based Training on Balance and Functional Performance in Individuals with Paraplegia

Abstract

To determine whether there is any difference between virtual reality game-based balance training and real-world task-specific balance training in improving sitting balance and functional performance in individuals with paraplegia. The study was a pre test-post test experimental design. There were 30 participants (28 males, 2 females) with traumatic spinal cord injury randomly assigned to 2 groups (group A and B). The levels of spinal injury of the participants were between T6 and T12. The virtual reality game-based balance training and real-world task-specific balance training were used as interventions in groups A and B, respectively. The total duration of the intervention was 4 weeks, with a frequency of 5 times a week; each training session lasted 45 minutes. The outcome measures were modified Functional Reach Test (mFRT), t-shirt test, and the self-care component of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure-III (SCIM-III). There was a significant difference for time ( = .001) and Time × Group effect ( = .001) in mFRT scores, group effect ( = .05) in t-shirt test scores, and time effect ( = .001) in the self-care component of SCIM-III. Virtual reality game-based training is better in improving balance and functional performance in individuals with paraplegia than real-world task-specific balance training.

Role of Virtual Reality in Balance Training in Patients with Spinal Cord Injury: A Prospective Comparative Pre-Post Study

“…Participants who had a persistent postural drop in blood pressure were trained first on a tilt table and were included for the study only when asymptomatic. The EG showed significant improvement (p<0.001) in all outcome measures (BBS, POMA-B, and FRS), which have also been reported by some earlier studies [15][16][17].…”

Effectiveness of Virtual Reality on Functional Performance after Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

“…The scores achieved in the PEDro scale are shown in Table 1 . Six studies had high methodological quality with PEDro scores ≥6: Gil-Agudo et al [ 7 ], D’Addio et al [ 6 ], Dimbwadyo-Terrer et al (2016) (a) [ 2 ], Dimbwadyo-Terrer et al (2016) (b) [ 34 ], Khurana et al [ 35 ], and Prasad et al [ 36 ]. Dimbwadyo-Terrer et al (2013) [ 11 ] scored 5, achieving the lowest score.…”

“…Concerning the assessment of the risk of bias for each of the studies included in this review, the researches carried out by Dimbwadyo-Terrer et al 2016 (a) [ 2 ], Khurana et al [ 35 ] and Prasad et al [ 36 ] had the lowest risk of bias, as shown in Figure 2 . Likewise, regarding the risk of bias among all the included studies, the lowest biases are presented in the incomplete outcome data (0%) and the selective reporting (0%), while the highest percentage (85.5%) was obtained in the allocation concealment, as shown in Figure 3 .…”

“…Concerning the number of participants, the study by Dinbwadyo-Terrer et al (a) [ 2 ] had the highest number of participants (n = 31). The studies of D’Addio et al [ 6 ] and Khurana et al [ 35 ] included 30 participants. The lowest sample size was achieved by Dimbwadyo-Terrer et al (b) [ 34 ], with 9 participants.…”

“…The lowest sample size was achieved by Dimbwadyo-Terrer et al (b) [ 34 ], with 9 participants. Finally, regarding the neurological level of injury, three studies [ 2 , 7 , 35 ] included participants with the American spinal injury association impairment scale (ASIA) A–B levels, three studies [ 11 , 34 , 36 ] included ASIA A–D levels, and one study [ 6 ] included ASIA C–D levels. Table 2 shows the main characteristics of the participants.…”