4.4 Article

Use of virtual reality for adjunctive treatment of adult burn pain during physical therapy: A controlled study

期刊

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 244-250

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00002508-200009000-00010

关键词

analgesia; burn pain; distraction; virtual reality

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM42725-07] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [H133A97004] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM042725] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The pain experienced by burn patients during physical therapy range of motion exercises can be extreme and can discourage patients from complying with their physical therapy. We explored the novel use of immersive virtual reality (VR) to distract patients from pain during physical therapy. Setting: This study was conducted at the burn care unit of a regional trauma center. Patients: Twelve patients aged 19 to 47 years (average of 21% total body surface area burned) performed range of motion exercises of their injured extremity under an occupational therapist's direction. Intervention: Each patient spent 3 minutes of physical therapy with no distraction and 3 minutes of physical therapy in VR (condition order randomized and counterbalanced). Outcome Measures: Five visual analogue scale pain scores for each treatment condition served as the dependent variables. Results: All patients reported less pain when distracted with VRI and the magnitude of pain reduction by VR was statistically significant (e.g., time spent thinking about pain during physical therapy dropped from 60 to 14 mm on a 100-mm scale). The results of this study may be examined in more detail at www.hitl.washington.edu/ projects/burn/. Conclusions: Results provided preliminary evidence that VR can function as a strong nonpharmacologic pain reduction technique for adult burn patients during physical therapy and potentially for other painful procedures or pain populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据