Table 5.
Effectiveness of exercise rehabilitation with virtual reality devices (N=23).
| Author, year | Results (preintervention or control group vs VRERa group) | |
|
|
Compared with preintervention | Compared with control |
| Atef et al [35], 2020 | There were significant improvements in excessive arm volume and affected upper limb dysfunction (9655.27 vs 6854.23 and 55 vs 38, respectively; both P<.05). The percentage improvement in excessive arm volume was 26.47% and that of upper limb dysfunction was 33.66%. | No significant differences (P>.05). |
| Basha et al [36], 2022 | There were significant improvements in excessive limb volume by 2.63%; disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand by 14.7; ROMb by 25.83°; strength by 1.28 kg; general health by 6.07; mental health by 4.53; vitality by 5.03; physical functioning by 14.7; social functioning by 2.77; and pain by 31.0 (all P<.05). | There were significant improvements in pain intensity (53.76 vs 40.33), disability of the arm (27.1 vs 22.9), shoulder ROM (including flexion, abduction, and external rotation, with scores of 126.0 vs 139.0, 102.1 vs 123.3, and 66.1 vs 75.0, respectively), general health (54.9 vs 58.4), and vitality (53.5 vs 55.7) (all P<.05). |
| Benzing et al [37], 2020 | NRc | No significant differences (P>.05). |
| Chen et al [38], 2019 | There were significant improvements in cognitive function (26.22 vs 17.41) and daily life ability (16.05 vs 20.79) (all P<.05). | NAd |
| da Silva Alves et al [39], 2018 | There were significant improvements in the general functional assessment (88.13 vs 95.37), functional outcomes index (76.00 vs 92.68), and fatigue assessment (121.20 vs 138.99) (all P<.05). | NA |
| da Silva Alves et al [40], 2017 | There were significant improvements in maximal voluntary isometric contraction of the right dorsiflexor muscles (6.62 vs 10.9), right plantar flexion (15.01 vs 22.59), and left medial gastrocnemius (158.61 vs 185.23) (all P<.05). | NA |
| Feyzioĝlu et al [41], 2020 | There were significant improvements in pain (6.53 vs 1.53), ROM (by 55.39°), muscle strength (5.97 vs 6.25), grip strength (21.47 vs 23.71), functionality (44.67 vs 16.49), and fear scores (42.37 vs 29.47) (all P<.05). | Fear of movement was significantly improved by VRER, while the traditional exercise rehabilitation displayed more improvement in functionality (5.94 vs 12.9 and −36.54 vs −28.18, respectively) (both P<.05). |
| Hamari et al [42], 2019 | No significant differences (P>.05). | No significant differences (P>.05). |
| Hoffman et al [43], 2013 | There were improvements in CRFe severity (4.8 vs 2.5), perceived self-efficacy for fatigue self-management (7 vs 8.8), walking and balance (47.4% vs 93.3% and 72.8% vs 83.7%, respectively), and functional performance (steps taken per day, 4650 vs 6393). No statistical analysis. | NA |
| Hoffman et al [44], 2014 | There were improvements in CRF severity (4.8 vs 1.3), perceived self-efficacy for fatigue self-management (7 vs 9), walking and balance (47.4% vs 99.4% and 72.8% vs 88.9%, respectively), and functional performance (steps taken per day, 4650 vs 7683). No statistical analysis. | NA |
| House et al [45], 2016 | There were significant improvements in ROM by 8°, strength by 8.2 N, daily life ability by 13.8, depression by −5.7, and visuospatial memory by 8 (all P<.05). | NA |
| Jin et al [46], 2018 | NR | There was a significant improvement in QoLf (75.1 vs 85.4; P<.05). |
| Jin et al [47], 2018 | NR | There were significant improvements in shoulder ROM (57.8° vs 81.6°), compliance (84% vs 100%), and edema rate of the affected limbs (42% vs 11%) (all P<.05). |
| Lin et al [48], 2021 | NR | There were significant improvements in postoperative complication rates (67% vs 11%), compliance (71% vs 95%), shoulder ROM (57.9° vs 81.6°), daily life ability (20.84 vs 16.07), QoL (15.39 vs 18.69), and cognition (24.60 vs 29.46) (all P<.05). |
| Park et al [49], 2023 | There were significant improvements in ROM (109.56 vs 169.12), limb dysfunction (22.05 vs 17.07), and QoL (0.69 vs 0.85) (all P<.05). | No significant differences (P>.05). |
| Sabel et al [50], 2016 | The body coordination score improved by 15% (P<.05). | No significant differences (P>.05). |
| Schwenk et al [51], 2016 | NR | There were significant improvements in the medial-lateral center of mass sway (21.2% vs 55.5%), hip sway (42.3% vs 67.5%), and ankle sway (21.4% vs 68.2%) (all P<.05). |
| Tanriverdi et al [52], 2022 | There were significant improvements in the Respiratory Disturbance Index (3.10 vs 1.97), number of apnea episodes (15.55 vs 10.14), and sleep habits (57.45 vs 48.27) (all P<.05). | NA |
| Tsuda et al [53], 2016 | No significant differences (P>.05). | NA |
| Villumsen et al [54], 2019 | NR | There was a significant improvement in the 6-min walking test by 4.2% (P<.05). |
| Yang et al [55], 2014 | There were significant improvements in the results of the continuous performance test (0.65 vs 0.55), digit span test (3.9 vs 5.1), visual span test (3.5 vs 4.6), learning test-recognition (30.5 vs 40.7), Trail Making Test-type A (137.9 vs 70.2), Korean version of the Modified Barthel Index (43.4 vs 73.7), and Korean version of the Mini-Mental Status Examination (19.8 vs 25.0) (all P<.05). | There were significant improvements in the results of the continuous performance test (−0.2 vs 0.0), backward digit span test (1.4 vs 0.3), backward visual span test (1.4 vs 0.7), and Trail Making Test-type A (−67.7 vs −24.5) (all P<.05). |
| Yoon et al [56], 2015 | There were significant improvements in manual dexterity (30.5 vs 38.0), manual function test results (70.3 vs 82.8), Fugl-Meyer scale scores of upper extremity motor ability (52.0 vs 58.0), and activity of life (52.5 vs 70.5) (all P<.05). | There were significant improvements in manual dexterity (8.0 vs 11.0), manual function test results (shoulder/elbow/forearm section, 5.0 vs 7.0), and Fugl-Meyer scale scores (shoulder/elbow/forearm section, 2.0 vs 3.5) (all P<.05). |
| Zhu et al [59], 2019 | NR | There were significant improvements in compliance (72.5 vs 90), shoulder ROM (57.84° vs 81.65°), and postoperative complication rates (12.5% vs 32.5%) (all P<.05). |
aVRER: virtual reality–based exercise rehabilitation.
bROM: range of motion.
cNR: not reported.
dNA: not available.
eCRF: cancer-related fatigue.
fQoL: quality of life.