Cargando…
Contextual sensory integration training vs. traditional vestibular rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial
BACKGROUND: We created a clinical virtual reality application for vestibular rehabilitation. Our app targets contextual sensory integration (C.S.I.) where patients are immersed in safe, increasingly challenging environments while practicing various tasks (e.g., turning, walking). The purpose of this...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10422780/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37568216 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-023-01224-6 |
_version_ | 1785089296870408192 |
---|---|
author | Kelly, Jennifer Harel, Daphna Krishnamoorthy, Santosh Fu, Gene Morris, Brittani Medlin, Andrew Mischinati, Sarah Wang, Zhu Sutera, John Perlin, Ken Cosetti, Maura Lubetzky, Anat V. |
author_facet | Kelly, Jennifer Harel, Daphna Krishnamoorthy, Santosh Fu, Gene Morris, Brittani Medlin, Andrew Mischinati, Sarah Wang, Zhu Sutera, John Perlin, Ken Cosetti, Maura Lubetzky, Anat V. |
author_sort | Kelly, Jennifer |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: We created a clinical virtual reality application for vestibular rehabilitation. Our app targets contextual sensory integration (C.S.I.) where patients are immersed in safe, increasingly challenging environments while practicing various tasks (e.g., turning, walking). The purpose of this pilot study was to establish the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing C.S.I. training to traditional vestibular rehabilitation. METHODS: Thirty patients with vestibular dysfunction completed the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), Visual Vertigo Analog Scale (VVAS), Functional Gait Assessment (FGA), Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG), and Four-Square Step Test (FSST). Following initial assessment, the patients were randomized into 8 weeks (once per week in clinic + home exercise program) of traditional vestibular rehabilitation or C.S.I. training. Six patients had to stop participation due to the covid-19 pandemic, 6 dropped out for other reasons (3 from each group). Ten patients in the traditional group and 8 in the C.S.I group completed the study. We applied an intention to treat analysis. RESULTS: Following intervention, we observed a significant main effect of time with no main effect of group or group by time interaction for the DHI (mean difference − 18.703, 95% CI [-28.235, -9.172], p = 0.0002), ABC (8.556, [0.938, 16.174], p = 0.028), VVAS, (-13.603, [-25.634, -1.573], p = 0.027) and the FGA (6.405, [4.474, 8.335], p < 0.0001). No changes were observed for TUG and FSST. CONCLUSION: Patients’ symptoms and function improved following either vestibular rehabilitation method. C.S.I training appeared comparable but not superior to traditional rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study (NCT04268745) was registered on clincaltrials.gov and can be found at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04268745. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12984-023-01224-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10422780 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104227802023-08-13 Contextual sensory integration training vs. traditional vestibular rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial Kelly, Jennifer Harel, Daphna Krishnamoorthy, Santosh Fu, Gene Morris, Brittani Medlin, Andrew Mischinati, Sarah Wang, Zhu Sutera, John Perlin, Ken Cosetti, Maura Lubetzky, Anat V. J Neuroeng Rehabil Research BACKGROUND: We created a clinical virtual reality application for vestibular rehabilitation. Our app targets contextual sensory integration (C.S.I.) where patients are immersed in safe, increasingly challenging environments while practicing various tasks (e.g., turning, walking). The purpose of this pilot study was to establish the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing C.S.I. training to traditional vestibular rehabilitation. METHODS: Thirty patients with vestibular dysfunction completed the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), Visual Vertigo Analog Scale (VVAS), Functional Gait Assessment (FGA), Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG), and Four-Square Step Test (FSST). Following initial assessment, the patients were randomized into 8 weeks (once per week in clinic + home exercise program) of traditional vestibular rehabilitation or C.S.I. training. Six patients had to stop participation due to the covid-19 pandemic, 6 dropped out for other reasons (3 from each group). Ten patients in the traditional group and 8 in the C.S.I group completed the study. We applied an intention to treat analysis. RESULTS: Following intervention, we observed a significant main effect of time with no main effect of group or group by time interaction for the DHI (mean difference − 18.703, 95% CI [-28.235, -9.172], p = 0.0002), ABC (8.556, [0.938, 16.174], p = 0.028), VVAS, (-13.603, [-25.634, -1.573], p = 0.027) and the FGA (6.405, [4.474, 8.335], p < 0.0001). No changes were observed for TUG and FSST. CONCLUSION: Patients’ symptoms and function improved following either vestibular rehabilitation method. C.S.I training appeared comparable but not superior to traditional rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study (NCT04268745) was registered on clincaltrials.gov and can be found at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04268745. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12984-023-01224-6. BioMed Central 2023-08-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10422780/ /pubmed/37568216 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-023-01224-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Kelly, Jennifer Harel, Daphna Krishnamoorthy, Santosh Fu, Gene Morris, Brittani Medlin, Andrew Mischinati, Sarah Wang, Zhu Sutera, John Perlin, Ken Cosetti, Maura Lubetzky, Anat V. Contextual sensory integration training vs. traditional vestibular rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title | Contextual sensory integration training vs. traditional vestibular rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_full | Contextual sensory integration training vs. traditional vestibular rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Contextual sensory integration training vs. traditional vestibular rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Contextual sensory integration training vs. traditional vestibular rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_short | Contextual sensory integration training vs. traditional vestibular rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_sort | contextual sensory integration training vs. traditional vestibular rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10422780/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37568216 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-023-01224-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kellyjennifer contextualsensoryintegrationtrainingvstraditionalvestibularrehabilitationapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT hareldaphna contextualsensoryintegrationtrainingvstraditionalvestibularrehabilitationapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT krishnamoorthysantosh contextualsensoryintegrationtrainingvstraditionalvestibularrehabilitationapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT fugene contextualsensoryintegrationtrainingvstraditionalvestibularrehabilitationapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT morrisbrittani contextualsensoryintegrationtrainingvstraditionalvestibularrehabilitationapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT medlinandrew contextualsensoryintegrationtrainingvstraditionalvestibularrehabilitationapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT mischinatisarah contextualsensoryintegrationtrainingvstraditionalvestibularrehabilitationapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT wangzhu contextualsensoryintegrationtrainingvstraditionalvestibularrehabilitationapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT suterajohn contextualsensoryintegrationtrainingvstraditionalvestibularrehabilitationapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT perlinken contextualsensoryintegrationtrainingvstraditionalvestibularrehabilitationapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT cosettimaura contextualsensoryintegrationtrainingvstraditionalvestibularrehabilitationapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT lubetzkyanatv contextualsensoryintegrationtrainingvstraditionalvestibularrehabilitationapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial |