Virtual reality-based gait rehabilitation intervention for stroke individuals: a scoping review.

Minjoon Kim, Fuminari Kaneko
Author Information
  1. Minjoon Kim: Department of Clinical Rehabilitation Research, National Rehabilitation Center and National Rehabilitation Research Institute, Seoul, Korea.
  2. Fuminari Kaneko: Department of Physical Therapy, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan.

Abstract

Virtual reality (VR)-based rehabilitation is rapidly gaining interest and has been shown to be an intervention to facilitate motor learning in balance and gait rehabilitation. A review of the current literature is needed to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge of VR-based gait physiotherapy for stroke patients. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed and Scopus. Search terms included: "virtual reality," "stroke," "gait," and "physical therapy." Articles published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2017 and 2021 were considered. The intervention was mainly related to the use of VR as a therapeutic modality, and the outcome was gait performance. The initial search identified 329 articles. After an eligibility review, 13 articles that met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Most of participants were in a chronic stage and were between 14 and 85 years old. The VR-based gait training ranged from nonimmersive to immersive, was mostly performed on a treadmill, and was usually combined with conventional physiotherapy. The duration of the program varied from 10 to 60 min, and there were about 9 to 30 sessions. VR-based gait rehabilitation has a positive effect on gait ability. The existing literature suggests that VR-based rehabilitation combined with conventional physiotherapy could improve gait ability of people with stroke, especially in the chronic stage. However, the duration of VR-based programs should be customized to suit individuals to avoid stimulation sickness. Further research is needed to investigate the long-term effects of this approach.

Keywords

References

  1. Front Syst Neurosci. 2019 Dec 17;13:74 [PMID: 31920570]
  2. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2017 Jan;26(1):94-100 [PMID: 27693404]
  3. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):141-6 [PMID: 26134548]
  4. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2021 Apr;57(2):227-237 [PMID: 33541040]
  5. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018 Feb;15(2):107-117 [PMID: 29313388]
  6. Phys Ther. 2021 May 4;101(5): [PMID: 33594443]
  7. Physiother Can. 2018 Summer;70(3):221-230 [PMID: 30275647]
  8. Eval Health Prof. 2020 Mar;43(1):23-32 [PMID: 30033748]
  9. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018 Jun;54(3):397-407 [PMID: 29265791]
  10. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Oct 18;16(1):121 [PMID: 31627755]
  11. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 21;12:CD010760 [PMID: 28000926]
  12. Neurol Res Pract. 2020 Jun 16;2:17 [PMID: 33324923]
  13. Lancet Neurol. 2015 Feb;14(2):224-34 [PMID: 25772900]
  14. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Mar;89(3):575-8 [PMID: 18295641]
  15. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Mar 04;8:112 [PMID: 24624073]
  16. Stroke. 2005 Sep;36(9):e100-43 [PMID: 16120836]
  17. Neuropsychology. 2017 Nov;31(8):877-899 [PMID: 29376669]
  18. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 May 10;12:46 [PMID: 25957577]
  19. NeuroRehabilitation. 2018;43(2):227-235 [PMID: 30040760]
  20. J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 02;10(7): [PMID: 33918365]
  21. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Apr 22;18(1):68 [PMID: 33888148]
  22. Expert Rev Neurother. 2011 Feb;11(2):153-5 [PMID: 21306202]
  23. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008 Feb;51(1):S225-39 [PMID: 18230848]
  24. Brain Sci. 2019 Oct 27;9(11): [PMID: 31717888]
  25. J Pers Med. 2021 Nov 16;11(11): [PMID: 34834562]
  26. PM R. 2014 Jul;6(7):635-42 [PMID: 24451335]
  27. NeuroRehabilitation. 2021;48(1):1-8 [PMID: 33361614]
  28. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019 Feb;33(2):112-129 [PMID: 30700224]
  29. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2010;33:89-108 [PMID: 20367317]
  30. Front Physiol. 2018 Aug 02;9:1021 [PMID: 30127749]
  31. J Rehabil Med. 2020 Nov 19;52(11):jrm00122 [PMID: 33145604]
  32. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Nov;83(11):1629-37 [PMID: 12422337]
  33. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2003 Dec;13(6):685-90 [PMID: 14662369]
  34. Braz J Phys Ther. 2014 Nov-Dec;18(6):502-12 [PMID: 25590442]
  35. Acta Neurol Belg. 2020 Aug;120(4):783-790 [PMID: 32166723]
  36. PLoS One. 2014 Feb 04;9(2):e87987 [PMID: 24505342]
  37. J Neurosci. 2014 Feb 19;34(8):3023-32 [PMID: 24553942]
  38. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018 Aug;54(4):545-553 [PMID: 28949120]
  39. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2019 Nov;28(11):104343 [PMID: 31495668]
  40. NeuroRehabilitation. 2018;42(4):441-448 [PMID: 29660958]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0gaitrehabilitationVR-based"VirtualrealityinterventionreviewliteraturephysiotherapystrokeVRcurrentneededsearchperformedtherapyarticleschronicstagecombinedconventionaldurationability-basedrapidlygaininginterestshownfacilitatemotorlearningbalanceprovideoverviewstateknowledgepatientssystematicPubMedScopusSearchtermsincluded:"virtual"stroke"gait"physicalArticlespublishedpeer-reviewedjournal20172021consideredmainlyrelatedusetherapeuticmodalityoutcomeperformanceinitialidentified329eligibility13metinclusioncriteriaincludedstudyparticipants1485yearsoldtrainingrangednonimmersiveimmersivemostlytreadmillusuallyprogramvaried1060min930sessionspositiveeffectexistingsuggestsimprovepeopleespeciallyHoweverprogramscustomizedsuitindividualsavoidstimulationsicknessresearchinvestigatelong-termeffectsapproachreality-basedindividuals:scopingPhysicalRehabilitationStroke

Similar Articles

Cited By