Comparison of virtual reality rehabilitation and conventional rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease: a randomised controlled trial

C Pazzaglia; I Imbimbo; E Tranchita; C Minganti; D Ricciardi; R Lo Monaco; A Parisi; L Padua

doi:10.1016/j.physio.2019.12.007

Comparison of virtual reality rehabilitation and conventional rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease: a randomised controlled trial

Physiotherapy. 2020 Mar:106:36-42. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2019.12.007. Epub 2019 Dec 23.

Authors

C Pazzaglia¹, I Imbimbo¹, E Tranchita², C Minganti², D Ricciardi³, R Lo Monaco³, A Parisi², L Padua⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Neurorehabilitation, IRCCS Don Carlo Gnocchi, Milan, Italy.
² Department of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, Division of Health Sciences, University of Rome Foro Italico, Rome, Italy.
³ Department of Geriatrics, Neurosciences and Orthopaedics, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
⁴ Department of Geriatrics, Neurosciences and Orthopaedics, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; UO Neuroriabilitazione ad Alta Intensità, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: luca.padua@unicatt.it.

PMID: 32026844
DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2019.12.007

Abstract

Objective: To compare a 6-week virtual reality (VR) rehabilitation programme with a conventional rehabilitation programme in patients with Parkinson's disease.

Design: Prospective, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Outpatients.

Participants: Fifty-one patients with Parkinson's disease were assigned at random to a VR rehabilitation programme or a conventional rehabilitation programme.

Interventions: Both programmes ran for 6 consecutive weeks, with a 40-minute session three times per week.

Main outcome measures: The Balance Berg Scale (BBS) was used to measure balance. Secondary outcome measures were: Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) to evaluate ability to adapt gait to complex walking tasks; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scale to measure performance of the upper limb; and Short Form 36 (SF-36) to evaluate quality of life.

Results: The VR rehabilitation programme led to an increase in BBS score {45.6 [standard deviation (SD) 7.9] vs 49.2 (SD 8.1), mean difference 3.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 5.9; P=0.003}, DGI score [18.7 (SD 4.7) vs 20.2 (SD 4.2), mean difference 1.6, 95% CI 0.6 to 2.5; P=0.003] and SF-36 mental composite score [37.7 (SD 11.4) vs 43.5 (SD 9.2), mean difference 5.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 11.3; P=0.037], and a decrease in DASH scale score [29.6 (SD 17.5) vs 21.6 (SD 15.1), mean difference -7.9, 95% CI -13.7 to -2.2; P=0.009]. In contrast, the conventional rehabilitation programme only led to a decrease in DASH scale score [30.3 (SD 18.1) vs 25.1 (SD 15.8), mean difference -5.2, 95% CI -8.8 to -1.5; P=0.007].

Conclusion: These findings suggest that rehabilitation is useful in Parkinson's disease, and the VR rehabilitation programme was more effective in determining overall improvement than the conventional rehabilitation programme.

Clinical trial registration number: NCT02807740.

Keywords: Conventional therapy; Functional outcome; Parkinson’s disease; Rehabilitation; Virtual reality.

Publication types

Comparative Study
Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH terms

Aged
Disability Evaluation
Female
Gait
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Parkinson Disease / physiopathology
Parkinson Disease / rehabilitation*
Physical Therapy Modalities*
Postural Balance
Prospective Studies
Quality of Life
Single-Blind Method
Virtual Reality*

Associated data

ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT02807740