Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40269873›Full record

ReviewJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025

Virtual reality-enhanced rehabilitation for improving musculoskeletal function and recovery after trauma.

Phani Paladugu, Rahul Kumar, Joshua Ong, Ethan Waisberg, Kyle Sporn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Phani PaladuguSidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, 1025 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Rahul KumarDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1011 NW 15Th Street, Miami, FL, 33136, USA.
Joshua OngDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Kellogg Eye Center, 1000 Wall Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA.
Ethan WaisbergDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0SP, UK.
Kyle SpornDepartment of Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University Norton College of Medicine, Syracuse, NY, USA. spornk@upstate.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Orthopedic trauma remains a critical challenge in modern healthcare, often resulting in severe mobility limitations, acute pain, and delayed recovery. Conventional rehabilitation techniques, though effective, fail to address the individualized, high-precision interventions needed for musculoskeletal injuries like fractures, joint instability, ligament tears, and muscular atrophy. Virtual reality (VR) technologies, such as Apple Vision Pro and HTC Vive Pro, offer a transformative approach by enhancing diagnostic precision, rehabilitation effectiveness, and patient engagement through interactive, immersive environments that improve clinical outcomes. These VR technologies provide real-time biomechanical data, such as joint mechanics, muscle coordination, and movement patterns, allowing clinicians to design personalized rehabilitation programs. These technologies can thus facilitate neuromuscular re-education, improve muscle proprioception, and enhance muscle coordination. Studies have shown that VR-based rehabilitation advances functional recovery, improves pain management, and reduces psychological barriers associated with immobility. VR also facilitates telemedicine, increasing accessibility for patients with geographic or mobility issues. However, while VR may provide biomechanical data, it is important to note that they fall short in accurate motion tracking, particularly in fine motor control tasks. This scoping review follows PRISMA guidelines to explore the potential of VR in orthopedic rehabilitation, analyzing its diagnostic capabilities, personalized interventions, and real-time feedback systems. Despite this, barriers remain, including regulatory challenges, limitations in haptic feedback, high cost, and patient compliance. By presenting a balanced perspective on the landscape of VR in orthopedic care, this paper emphasizes the need for rigorous clinical validation, regulatory advancements, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Ultimately, VR offers the potential to significantly improve recovery outcomes, enhance patient engagement, and streamline rehabilitation protocols, but its successful integration into clinical practice must be approached with both optimism and caution.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal SystemRecovery of FunctionVirtual RealityWounds and InjuriesHumans

Identifiers

PMID40269873
PMCPMC12016257

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.