Objective: The prolonged coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is likely to cause psychological distress in people. This systematic review aimed to identify the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR)-based psychological intervention among individuals with psychological distress during the COVID-19 crisis. PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched for articles published until July 2022. Methods: The available citations were deduplicated and screened by two authors using the title and abstract information. Eligibility criteria were constructed according to the PICOT guidelines. Empirical studies of all designs and comparator groups were included if they appraised the impact of an immersive VR intervention on any standardized measure indicative of psychological distress (stress, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic symptoms) or improvements in quality of life in participants, including COVID-19 patients, medical staff working with COVID-19 patients, and people who had experienced strict social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: The results were discussed using a narrative synthesis because of the heterogeneity between studies. Seven of the studies met the inclusion criteria. There were two randomized controlled trials and five uncontrolled studies on VR interventions. Conclusion All studies reported significant improvement in a wide range of psychological distress during COVID-19, ranging from stress, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic symptoms to quality of life, supporting the efficacy of VR-based psychological intervention. Our results suggest that VR intervention has potential to ameliorate COVID-19-related psychological distress with efficacy and safety.

Objective: We evaluated the efficacy of a newly-developed spinal orthoses (V-LSO) by comparing the stabilizing effect, abdominal pressure, and comfort of 3 different semirigid LSOs (classic LSO, V-LSO, and CybertechⓇ ) during various body movements. Methods: Thirty healthy volunteers (23∼47 years, 24 males, 6 females) were selected. A dual inclinometer measured the range of motion (ROM) while the participants performed flexion/extension and lateral flexion of the lumbar spine with 3 LSOs.The LSO’s pressure on the abdominal surface was measured using 9 pressure sensors while lying, sitting, standing, flexion/extension, lateral flexion, axial rotation, and lifting a box. Comfort and subjective immobilization were analyzed by a questionnaire. Results: V-LSO had a statistically significant effect on flexion over CybertechⓇ . No significant differences were noted during extension and lateral flexion between the 3 LSOs. The abdominal pressure showed no significant differences while supine. While sitting, standing, and lifting a box, the mean abdominal pressure for V-LSO were significantly higher than those for Cybertech Ⓡ . During lumbar flexion, the mean abdominal pressures for classic LSO and V-LSO were significantly higher than that of CybertechⓇ . For extension, lateral flexion and axial rotation, the abdominal pressure for V-LSO was significantly higher than those of classic LSO and CybertechⓇ . In the subjective analysis, V-LSO and CybertechⓇ scored best for comfort. Conclusion The V-LSO and CybertechⓇ were more comfortable than the classic LSO, and hence, may have improved compliance with decreased discomfort. V-LSO may be superior to the other LSOs in restricting lumbar movement and increasing intraabdominal pressure.

Objective: We evaluated the efficacy of a newly-developed spinal orthoses (V-LSO) by comparing the stabilizing effect, abdominal pressure, and comfort of 3 different semirigid LSOs (classic LSO, V-LSO, and CybertechⓇ ) during various body movements. Methods: Thirty healthy volunteers (23∼47 years, 24 males, 6 females) were selected. A dual inclinometer measured the range of motion (ROM) while the participants performed flexion/extension and lateral flexion of the lumbar spine with 3 LSOs.The LSO’s pressure on the abdominal surface was measured using 9 pressure sensors while lying, sitting, standing, flexion/extension, lateral flexion, axial rotation, and lifting a box. Comfort and subjective immobilization were analyzed by a questionnaire. Results: V-LSO had a statistically significant effect on flexion over CybertechⓇ . No significant differences were noted during extension and lateral flexion between the 3 LSOs. The abdominal pressure showed no significant differences while supine. While sitting, standing, and lifting a box, the mean abdominal pressure for V-LSO were significantly higher than those for Cybertech Ⓡ . During lumbar flexion, the mean abdominal pressures for classic LSO and V-LSO were significantly higher than that of CybertechⓇ . For extension, lateral flexion and axial rotation, the abdominal pressure for V-LSO was significantly higher than those of classic LSO and CybertechⓇ . In the subjective analysis, V-LSO and CybertechⓇ scored best for comfort. Conclusion The V-LSO and CybertechⓇ were more comfortable than the classic LSO, and hence, may have improved compliance with decreased discomfort. V-LSO may be superior to the other LSOs in restricting lumbar movement and increasing intraabdominal pressure.

Objective: To compare the convenience and effectiveness of the existing lumbosacral orthoses (LSO) (classic LSO and Cybertech) and a newly developed LSO (V-LSO) by analyzing postoperative data. Methods: This prospective cohort study was performed from May 2019 to November 2019 and enrolled and analyzed 88 patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease scheduled for elective lumbar surgery. Three types of LSO that were provided according to the time of patient registration were applied for 6 weeks. Patients were randomized into the classic LSO group (n=31), Cybertech group (n=26), and V-LSO group (n=31). All patients were assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) preoperatively and underwent plain lumbar radiography (anteroposterior and lateral views) 10 days postoperatively. Lumbar lordosis (LS angle) and frontal imbalance were measured with and without LSO. At the sixth postoperative week, a follow-up assessment with the ODI and orthosis questionnaire was conducted. Results: No significant differences were found among the three groups in terms of the LS angle, frontal imbalance, ODI, and orthosis questionnaire results. When the change in the LS angle and frontal imbalance toward the reference value was defined as a positive change with and without LSO, the rate of positive change was significantly different in the V-LSO group (LS angle: 41.94% vs. 61.54% vs. 83.87%; p=0.003). Conclusion The newly developed LSO showed no difference regarding its effectiveness and compliance when compared with the existing LSO, but it was more effective in correcting lumbar lordosis.