This is only 6 years old so you can come to your own conclusions about your doctors efficacy.
Ask what research has superceded it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17517575
Source
Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE:
It
is estimated that 50% to 75% of individuals who experience a stroke
have persistent impairment of the affected upper limb (UL). There is a
need to identify the best training strategies for retraining motor
function of the UL. One intervention showing promise is virtual reality
(VR), using either immersive or nonimmersive technology. Before
recommending VR for use in clinical practice, it is important to
understand the evidence regarding its effectiveness.
METHOD:
Two
questions about the effectiveness of VR for UL rehabilitation in stroke
were posed: (1) Is the use of immersive VR more effective than
conventional therapy or no therapy in the rehabilitation of the UL in
patients with hemiplegia? (2) Is the use of nonimmersive VR more
effective than conventional therapy or no therapy in the rehabilitation
of the UL in patients with hemiplegia?
RESULTS:
There is
level 1b evidence suggesting an advantage to training in immersive VR
environments versus no therapy in UL rehabilitation, and level 5
evidence for training in immersive VR versus conventional therapy. There
is level 4 evidence showing conflicting results for training in
nonimmersive VR versus no therapy, and level 2b evidence for training in
nonimmersive VR versus conventional therapy.
CONCLUSION:
The
current evidence on the effectiveness of using VR in the rehabilitation
of the UL in patients with stroke is limited but sufficiently
encouraging to justify additional clinical trials in this population.
No comments:
Post a Comment