Comparative Outcomes of Conventional Physiotherapy Versus Virtual Reality–Based Rehabilitation in Post-Orthopedic Surgery Patients: A Case Review of Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria - 2025

Authors

Afouda Bamidele Imogirie

Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Anambra State (Nigeria)

Article Information

DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS.2026.110200113

Subject Category: Health Science

Volume/Issue: 11/2 | Page No: 1248-1256

Publication Timeline

Submitted: 2026-03-07

Accepted: 2026-03-14

Published: 2026-03-18

Abstract

Recovery after orthopedic surgery largely depends on the quality and effectiveness of rehabilitation. Traditionally, conventional physiotherapy has been the main approach used to restore movement, strength, and functional independence. In recent years, virtual reality (VR)–based rehabilitation has emerged as an innovative alternative that combines therapeutic exercises with interactive digital environments. This review compares the outcomes of conventional physiotherapy and VR-based rehabilitation among post-orthopedic surgery patients, using clinical experiences and available evidence relevant to Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria. The review focuses on functional recovery, patient engagement, balance, pain management, and overall rehabilitation outcomes. Evidence from recent studies suggests that while both approaches improve physical function, VR-based rehabilitation may enhance patient motivation, adherence to therapy, and balance performance. However, challenges such as cost, limited infrastructure, and lack of technical expertise may restrict widespread adoption in low- and middle-income settings. The review highlights the potential of integrating VR into rehabilitation practice in Awka as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for conventional physiotherapy.

Keywords

Orthopedic Rehabilitation, Conventional Physiotherapy, Virtual Reality Rehabilitation, Post Surgical Recovery, Nigeria

Downloads

References

1. Adebayo, T. A., Okorie, P. N., & Sule, A. M. (2022). Barriers to adoption of digital rehabilitation technologies in low- and middle-income countries. African Journal of Health Technology, 6(2), 34–41. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2020). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 37(3), 161–174. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Howard, M. C., & Gutworth, M. B. (2022). A meta-analysis of virtual reality training programs for physical rehabilitation. Journal of Neuro Engineering and Rehabilitation, 19(1), 98. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Howard, M. C., Rowe, J. P., & Blake, J. (2022). Engagement and adherence in virtual reality-based rehabilitation programs. Clinical Rehabilitation, 36(9), 1175– 1186. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Kim, H. J., & Park, J. S. (2021). Effects of virtual reality balance training in post- orthopedic rehabilitation. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 33(4), 291– 298. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Laver, K. E., Lange, B., George, S., Deutsch, J. E., & Crotty, M. (2020). Virtual reality for rehabilitation: Evidence and clinical implications. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (11), CD008349. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Li, X., Zhou, Y., & Chen, H. (2024). Pain perception and functional recovery in virtual reality– assisted orthopedic rehabilitation. Journal of Orthopaedic Science, 29(1), 45–53. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Okechukwu, P. O., & Nwankwo, E. C. (2021). Orthopedic physiotherapy practices in Southeast Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Medical Rehabilitation, 24(2), 67–74. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. World Health Organization. (2023). Rehabilitation in health systems: Global framework. Geneva: WHO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Yeung, L. F., Chan, R. L., & Pang, M. Y. (2023). Virtual reality-based rehabilitation versus conventional physiotherapy following orthopedic surgery. Clinical Rehabilitation, 37(5), 623–634. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles