Effects of VR distraction in combination with NMES
cramping
ADVERSE EVENT
In 98 of the 228 interventions the patients in the NMES + VR group used to wear the VR-headsets, which means an adherece rate of 42.98%. 70.41% of the applications were of the category relaxation, 9.18% of the category interactive games and for 20.41% there was no documentation of the chosen VR applications. There were different reasons for the non-willingness to use the VR-headset. Some patients preferred to watch TV, others were bored with the applications, and others were generally not interested in the VR headset anymore. Nevertheless, the NMES was always performed, even without VR. The values of the VAS and intensity of NMES of the NMES + VR group without VR were assigned to the NMES group accordingly. Therefore, the analysis of the VAS and intensity resulted in two different numbers of interventions in the NMES and NMES + VR groups. A Mann–Whitney U test was applied to test whether the intensity of NMES differed between the NMES and NMES + VR groups. According to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, the distributions of the two groups differ from each other (Boxplot—Individual intensity (milliampere) of stimulation in each group. Adverse events. mA: milliampere; NMES: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation; NMES + VR: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation + virtual reality. Note: For the evaluation of the VAS, 429 interventions of the NMES group and 98 of the NMES + VR group could be considered in the analysisOne patient, who was included in the final analysis, reported having a one-time cramping feeling in the hip area after NMES. The NMES intensity was subsequently reduced, and no further problems were reported.