Virtual and Augmented Reality-based Treatments for Phantom Limb Pain: A Systematic Review.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the literature on the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR)- and augmented reality (AR)-based treatments for phantom limb pain (PLP) in postamputation or brachial plexus avulsion (BPA) populations.

Methods: Multiple databases were queried in July 2021 with the keywords "virtual reality," "augmented reality," and "phantom limb pain." Included studies utilized VR or AR to treat PLP with outcome measurement. Two independent reviewers assessed methodological quality using the Physiotherapy Evidence Databsae (PEDro) Scale and the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) scoring. Studies were separated into immersive and nonimmersive AR/VR systems, with further categorization according to the specific methodologies used.

Results: Of 110 results from the database queries, 20 publications met the inclusion criteria. There was one unblinded, randomized, control trial (RCT), one single-blinded, randomized, crossover trial (RCxT), three comparative case series, 13 noncomparative case series, and two case reports. Seven of the 20 studies were classified as nonimmersive. Six studies reported decreased PLP after AR/VR treatments, of which four reported significant reductions. One study reported a reduction in PLP with no significant difference from control conditions. Thirteen of the 20 studies were classified as immersive AR/VR. Twelve studies reported decreased PLP after AR/VR treatments, of which eight reported significant reductions. One study found no change in PLP, compared to baseline.

Conclusion: The number of studies using AR/VR in PLP treatment has expanded since a 2017 review on the topic. The majority of these studies offer support for the efficacy of treating PLP with AR/VR-based treatments. Research has expanded on the customization, outcome measurements, and statistical analysis of AR/VR treatments. While results are promising, most publications remain at the case series level, and clinical indications should be cautioned. With improvements in the quality of evidence, there remain avenues for further investigations, including increased sampling, randomization, optimization of treatment duration, and comparisons to alternative therapies.