EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Searches were conducted with the Web of Science, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed databases from inception up to September 2020. Articles that employed virtual reality in the rehabilitation of individual with upper limb loss were included in the research if it is written in English, the keyword exists in the title and abstract; it uses visual feedback in nonimmersive, semi-immersive, or fully immersive virtual environments. Data extraction was carried out by two independent researchers. The study was drafted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 38 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were published between 2010 and 2020. Thirty-nine percent of the studies (N.=15), originates from North America; 55% of the studies (N.=21), were publicly funded; 61% of the studies (N.=24), was without disclosure of conflict of interest; 82% of the studies (N.=31), were cited in other studies. All the studies were published in journals and conference proceedings. Sixty-six percent of the studies (N.=25) has come out with positive outcome. The design studies were mostly case reports, case series, and poorly designed cohort studies that made up 55% (N.=21) of all the studies cited here.
CONCLUSIONS: The research conducted on the use of virtual reality in individual with upper limb loss rehabilitation is of very low quality. The improvements to the research protocol are much needed. It is not necessary to develop new devices, but rather to assess existing devices with well-conducted randomized controlled trials.
METHODS: Twenty-three collegiate male soccer players (22.1±1.7 years) were tested in four conditions; vertical jump (VJ), vertical jump immediately after slow running (VJSR), vertical jump immediately after sprinting (VJFR) and double horizontal jump immediately after sprinting (HJFR). The kinematics and kinetics data were measured using Vicon motion analyzer (100Hz) and two Kistler force platforms (1000Hz), respectively.
RESULTS: For knee flexion joint angle, (p = 0.014, η = 0.15) and knee valgus moment (p = 0.001, η = 0.71) differences between condition in the landing phase were found. For knee valgus joint angle, a main effect between legs in the jumping phase was found (p = 0.006, η = 0.31), which suggests bilateral deficit existed between the right and left lower limbs.
CONCLUSION: In brief, the important findings were greater knee valgus moment and less knee flexion joint angle proceeding sprint (HJFR & VJFR) rather than no sprint condition (VJ) present an increased risk for knee injuries. These results seem to suggest that running and sudden subsequent jumping-landing activity experienced during playing soccer may negatively change the knee valgus moment. Thus, sprinting preceding a jump task may increase knee risk factors such as moment and knee flexion joint angle.