Virtual reality for total hip arthroplasty rehabilitation: Kinect versus Nintendo Wii, a single-blind randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Compare the effectiveness of integrating virtual reality systems, Nintendo Wii and Microsoft Kinect, integrated with conventional physiotherapy versus conventional physiotherapy alone, in improving lower limb physical function in people over 60 years of age undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Design Randomised, single-blind clinical trial. Setting San Borja Arriaran Clinical Hospital, Santiago, Chile. Participants 111 individuals over 60 years of age, divided into three groups (n = 37 each). Interventions For six weeks, the control group received conventional physiotherapy. The Wii and Kinect groups received the same physiotherapy programme plus 15 min of exercise using virtual reality platforms. Outcome measures The primary outcome was the function subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Secondary outcomes included WOMAC pain, Berg Balance Scale, Six-Minute Walk Test, and weight-bearing. Results All groups improved. For WOMAC function, the Wii group surpassed the Kinect group (mean difference: 40.48 points; p < 0.001; minimum clinically important difference MCID: 11.9 points) but not the control group. The Wii group also led in balance (Berg Balance Scale mean difference: 19.41 points; p < 0.001; MCID: 11.5 points). The Kinect group was superior in the Six-Minute Walk Test (mean difference: 133.10 metres; p = 0.001) and WOMAC pain reduction (mean difference: 11.45 points; p < 0.003) exceeding the MCID of 2.2 points. No significant changes were observed in weight-bearing. Conclusion Virtual reality combined with physiotherapy improves clinically meaningful outcomes following hip arthroplasty. The Wii favours balance, while Kinect enhances pain and gait, supporting personalised rehabilitation. Trial registration This research was registered in the Clinical Trials Registry of Australia and New Zealand (ACTRN12618001252202).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.213 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".