Virtual Reality Training for Upper Extremity in Subacute Stroke (VIRTUES) A multicenter RCT

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of upper extremity virtual reality rehabilitation training (VR) to time-matched conventional training (CT) in the subacute phase after stroke. Methods: In this randomized, controlled, single-blind phase III multicenter trial, 120 participants with upper extrem...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Neurology 2017-11, Vol.89 (24), p.2413-2421
Hauptverfasser: Brunner, Iris, Skouen, Jan Sture, Hofstad, Hakon, Becker, Frank, Sanders, Anne-Marthe, Pallesen, Hanne, Kristensen, Lola Qvist, Michielsen, Marc, Thijs, Liselot, Verheyden, Geert
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2421
container_issue 24
container_start_page 2413
container_title Neurology
container_volume 89
creator Brunner, Iris
Skouen, Jan Sture
Hofstad, Hakon
Becker, Frank
Sanders, Anne-Marthe
Pallesen, Hanne
Kristensen, Lola Qvist
Michielsen, Marc
Thijs, Liselot
Verheyden, Geert
description Objective: To compare the effectiveness of upper extremity virtual reality rehabilitation training (VR) to time-matched conventional training (CT) in the subacute phase after stroke. Methods: In this randomized, controlled, single-blind phase III multicenter trial, 120 participants with upper extremity motor impairment within 12 weeks after stroke were consecutively included at 5 rehabilitation institutions. Participants were randomized to either VR or CT as an adjunct to standard rehabilitation and stratified according to mild to moderate or severe hand paresis, defined as >=20 degrees wrist and 10 degrees finger extension or less, respectively. The training comprised a minimum of sixteen 60-minute sessions over 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT); secondary outcome measures were the Box and Blocks Test and Functional Independence Measure. Patients were assessed at baseline, after intervention, and at the 3-month follow-up. Results: Mean time from stroke onset for the VR group was 35 (SD 21) days and for the CT group was 34 (SD 19) days. There were no between-group differences for any of the outcome measures. Improvement of upper extremity motor function assessed with ARAT was similar at the postintervention (p = 0.714) and follow-up (p = 0.777) assessments. Patients in VR improved 12 (SD 11) points from baseline to the postintervention assessment and 17 (SD 13) points from baseline to follow-up, while patients in CT improved 13 (SD 10) and 17 (SD 13) points, respectively. Improvement was also similar for our subgroup analysis with mild to moderate and severe upper extremity paresis. Conclusions: Additional upper extremity VR training was not superior but equally as effective as additional CT in the subacute phase after stroke. VR may constitute a motivating training alternative as a supplement to standard rehabilitation. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02079103. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with upper extremity motor impairment after stroke, compared to conventional training, VR training did not lead to significant differences in upper extremity function improvement.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>kuleuven</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_kuleuven_dspace_123456789_599223</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>123456789_599223</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-kuleuven_dspace_123456789_5992233</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVi8sOwUAUQGdB4vkPd4eIpGZU26VIhW0fNhbNqEuGMZrpHeHvkfgAVmdxzmmwtufxcCLCIGyxTl2fPW_q8yBqs91WWXJSQ4JSK3pCZqUyypzgeLOQVxVaiB9k8fqRykDq9rJ0hJCSvV0QhttNkuVxOoIFXJ0mVaKh95Qssx5rHqWusf9llw1WcbZcTy5Oo7ujKQ51JUssplzM_HkQRoUfRZwL8U85_q0s6EHiBWz9T8E</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Institutional Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Virtual Reality Training for Upper Extremity in Subacute Stroke (VIRTUES) A multicenter RCT</title><source>Lirias (KU Leuven Association)</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Brunner, Iris ; Skouen, Jan Sture ; Hofstad, Hakon ; Becker, Frank ; Sanders, Anne-Marthe ; Pallesen, Hanne ; Kristensen, Lola Qvist ; Michielsen, Marc ; Thijs, Liselot ; Verheyden, Geert</creator><creatorcontrib>Brunner, Iris ; Skouen, Jan Sture ; Hofstad, Hakon ; Becker, Frank ; Sanders, Anne-Marthe ; Pallesen, Hanne ; Kristensen, Lola Qvist ; Michielsen, Marc ; Thijs, Liselot ; Verheyden, Geert</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: To compare the effectiveness of upper extremity virtual reality rehabilitation training (VR) to time-matched conventional training (CT) in the subacute phase after stroke. Methods: In this randomized, controlled, single-blind phase III multicenter trial, 120 participants with upper extremity motor impairment within 12 weeks after stroke were consecutively included at 5 rehabilitation institutions. Participants were randomized to either VR or CT as an adjunct to standard rehabilitation and stratified according to mild to moderate or severe hand paresis, defined as &gt;=20 degrees wrist and 10 degrees finger extension or less, respectively. The training comprised a minimum of sixteen 60-minute sessions over 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT); secondary outcome measures were the Box and Blocks Test and Functional Independence Measure. Patients were assessed at baseline, after intervention, and at the 3-month follow-up. Results: Mean time from stroke onset for the VR group was 35 (SD 21) days and for the CT group was 34 (SD 19) days. There were no between-group differences for any of the outcome measures. Improvement of upper extremity motor function assessed with ARAT was similar at the postintervention (p = 0.714) and follow-up (p = 0.777) assessments. Patients in VR improved 12 (SD 11) points from baseline to the postintervention assessment and 17 (SD 13) points from baseline to follow-up, while patients in CT improved 13 (SD 10) and 17 (SD 13) points, respectively. Improvement was also similar for our subgroup analysis with mild to moderate and severe upper extremity paresis. Conclusions: Additional upper extremity VR training was not superior but equally as effective as additional CT in the subacute phase after stroke. VR may constitute a motivating training alternative as a supplement to standard rehabilitation. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02079103. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with upper extremity motor impairment after stroke, compared to conventional training, VR training did not lead to significant differences in upper extremity function improvement.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0028-3878</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Advanstar Communications</publisher><ispartof>Neurology, 2017-11, Vol.89 (24), p.2413-2421</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,315,780,784,27859</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brunner, Iris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skouen, Jan Sture</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hofstad, Hakon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Becker, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanders, Anne-Marthe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pallesen, Hanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kristensen, Lola Qvist</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michielsen, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thijs, Liselot</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verheyden, Geert</creatorcontrib><title>Virtual Reality Training for Upper Extremity in Subacute Stroke (VIRTUES) A multicenter RCT</title><title>Neurology</title><description>Objective: To compare the effectiveness of upper extremity virtual reality rehabilitation training (VR) to time-matched conventional training (CT) in the subacute phase after stroke. Methods: In this randomized, controlled, single-blind phase III multicenter trial, 120 participants with upper extremity motor impairment within 12 weeks after stroke were consecutively included at 5 rehabilitation institutions. Participants were randomized to either VR or CT as an adjunct to standard rehabilitation and stratified according to mild to moderate or severe hand paresis, defined as &gt;=20 degrees wrist and 10 degrees finger extension or less, respectively. The training comprised a minimum of sixteen 60-minute sessions over 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT); secondary outcome measures were the Box and Blocks Test and Functional Independence Measure. Patients were assessed at baseline, after intervention, and at the 3-month follow-up. Results: Mean time from stroke onset for the VR group was 35 (SD 21) days and for the CT group was 34 (SD 19) days. There were no between-group differences for any of the outcome measures. Improvement of upper extremity motor function assessed with ARAT was similar at the postintervention (p = 0.714) and follow-up (p = 0.777) assessments. Patients in VR improved 12 (SD 11) points from baseline to the postintervention assessment and 17 (SD 13) points from baseline to follow-up, while patients in CT improved 13 (SD 10) and 17 (SD 13) points, respectively. Improvement was also similar for our subgroup analysis with mild to moderate and severe upper extremity paresis. Conclusions: Additional upper extremity VR training was not superior but equally as effective as additional CT in the subacute phase after stroke. VR may constitute a motivating training alternative as a supplement to standard rehabilitation. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02079103. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with upper extremity motor impairment after stroke, compared to conventional training, VR training did not lead to significant differences in upper extremity function improvement.</description><issn>0028-3878</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>FZOIL</sourceid><recordid>eNqVi8sOwUAUQGdB4vkPd4eIpGZU26VIhW0fNhbNqEuGMZrpHeHvkfgAVmdxzmmwtufxcCLCIGyxTl2fPW_q8yBqs91WWXJSQ4JSK3pCZqUyypzgeLOQVxVaiB9k8fqRykDq9rJ0hJCSvV0QhttNkuVxOoIFXJ0mVaKh95Qssx5rHqWusf9llw1WcbZcTy5Oo7ujKQ51JUssplzM_HkQRoUfRZwL8U85_q0s6EHiBWz9T8E</recordid><startdate>20171115</startdate><enddate>20171115</enddate><creator>Brunner, Iris</creator><creator>Skouen, Jan Sture</creator><creator>Hofstad, Hakon</creator><creator>Becker, Frank</creator><creator>Sanders, Anne-Marthe</creator><creator>Pallesen, Hanne</creator><creator>Kristensen, Lola Qvist</creator><creator>Michielsen, Marc</creator><creator>Thijs, Liselot</creator><creator>Verheyden, Geert</creator><general>Advanstar Communications</general><scope>FZOIL</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171115</creationdate><title>Virtual Reality Training for Upper Extremity in Subacute Stroke (VIRTUES) A multicenter RCT</title><author>Brunner, Iris ; Skouen, Jan Sture ; Hofstad, Hakon ; Becker, Frank ; Sanders, Anne-Marthe ; Pallesen, Hanne ; Kristensen, Lola Qvist ; Michielsen, Marc ; Thijs, Liselot ; Verheyden, Geert</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-kuleuven_dspace_123456789_5992233</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brunner, Iris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skouen, Jan Sture</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hofstad, Hakon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Becker, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanders, Anne-Marthe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pallesen, Hanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kristensen, Lola Qvist</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michielsen, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thijs, Liselot</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verheyden, Geert</creatorcontrib><collection>Lirias (KU Leuven Association)</collection><jtitle>Neurology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brunner, Iris</au><au>Skouen, Jan Sture</au><au>Hofstad, Hakon</au><au>Becker, Frank</au><au>Sanders, Anne-Marthe</au><au>Pallesen, Hanne</au><au>Kristensen, Lola Qvist</au><au>Michielsen, Marc</au><au>Thijs, Liselot</au><au>Verheyden, Geert</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Virtual Reality Training for Upper Extremity in Subacute Stroke (VIRTUES) A multicenter RCT</atitle><jtitle>Neurology</jtitle><date>2017-11-15</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>89</volume><issue>24</issue><spage>2413</spage><epage>2421</epage><pages>2413-2421</pages><issn>0028-3878</issn><abstract>Objective: To compare the effectiveness of upper extremity virtual reality rehabilitation training (VR) to time-matched conventional training (CT) in the subacute phase after stroke. Methods: In this randomized, controlled, single-blind phase III multicenter trial, 120 participants with upper extremity motor impairment within 12 weeks after stroke were consecutively included at 5 rehabilitation institutions. Participants were randomized to either VR or CT as an adjunct to standard rehabilitation and stratified according to mild to moderate or severe hand paresis, defined as &gt;=20 degrees wrist and 10 degrees finger extension or less, respectively. The training comprised a minimum of sixteen 60-minute sessions over 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT); secondary outcome measures were the Box and Blocks Test and Functional Independence Measure. Patients were assessed at baseline, after intervention, and at the 3-month follow-up. Results: Mean time from stroke onset for the VR group was 35 (SD 21) days and for the CT group was 34 (SD 19) days. There were no between-group differences for any of the outcome measures. Improvement of upper extremity motor function assessed with ARAT was similar at the postintervention (p = 0.714) and follow-up (p = 0.777) assessments. Patients in VR improved 12 (SD 11) points from baseline to the postintervention assessment and 17 (SD 13) points from baseline to follow-up, while patients in CT improved 13 (SD 10) and 17 (SD 13) points, respectively. Improvement was also similar for our subgroup analysis with mild to moderate and severe upper extremity paresis. Conclusions: Additional upper extremity VR training was not superior but equally as effective as additional CT in the subacute phase after stroke. VR may constitute a motivating training alternative as a supplement to standard rehabilitation. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02079103. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with upper extremity motor impairment after stroke, compared to conventional training, VR training did not lead to significant differences in upper extremity function improvement.</abstract><pub>Advanstar Communications</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0028-3878
ispartof Neurology, 2017-11, Vol.89 (24), p.2413-2421
issn 0028-3878
language eng
recordid cdi_kuleuven_dspace_123456789_599223
source Lirias (KU Leuven Association); Journals@Ovid Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection
title Virtual Reality Training for Upper Extremity in Subacute Stroke (VIRTUES) A multicenter RCT
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T08%3A18%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-kuleuven&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Virtual%20Reality%20Training%20for%20Upper%20Extremity%20in%20Subacute%20Stroke%20(VIRTUES)%20A%20multicenter%20RCT&rft.jtitle=Neurology&rft.au=Brunner,%20Iris&rft.date=2017-11-15&rft.volume=89&rft.issue=24&rft.spage=2413&rft.epage=2421&rft.pages=2413-2421&rft.issn=0028-3878&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Ckuleuven%3E123456789_599223%3C/kuleuven%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true