Table 4 Comparison of VR to traditional methods in orthopedic rehabilitation
Factor | VR rehabilitation | Traditional rehabilitation |
|---|---|---|
Initial setup cost | Expensive, advanced VR hardware purchase and setup, software licenses, sensor attachments, and clinician training | Low-cost basic equipment (therapy tools) |
Ongoing maintenance costs | Regularly system updates, hardware maintenance | Low-cost maintenance associated with equipment wear and tear and training |
Training costs | Clinicians require specialized training to effectively use VR systems | Low-cost training for traditional physiotherapy |
Treatment precision | Highly immersive, interactive experiences lead to better therapeutic adherence | Lack of precision and dynamic feedback |
Customization | Highly customizable with dynamic adjustments | Manual adjustments less responsive to VR systems |
Clinical efficiency | Allows for simultaneous treatment of multiple patients | Requires extensive physician involvement, limiting the number of patients that can be treated |
Return on investment (ROI) | High ROI if implemented correctly for specific conditions (post-ACL surgery, etc.) | ROI takes much longer to achieve and requires more resources |