Comparison of virtual reality rehabilitation and conventionalrehabilitation in Parkinson’s disease: a randomised controlledtrial

OBJECTIVE:\r\nTo compare a 6-week virtual reality (VR) rehabilitation programme with a conventional rehabilitation programme in patients with Parkinson's disease.\r\nDESIGN:\r\nProspective, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial.\r\nSETTING:\r\nOutpatients.\r\nPARTICIPANTS:\r\nFifty-one patients with Parkinson's disease were assigned at random to a VR rehabilitation programme or a conventional rehabilitation programme.\r\nINTERVENTIONS:\r\nBoth programmes ran for 6 consecutive weeks, with a 40-minute session three times per week.\r\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:\r\nThe 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.\r\nRESULTS:\r\nThe 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].\r\nCONCLUSION:\r\nThese 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.