Emerging Perspectives in Stroke Rehabilitation

The only perspective in stroke rehab is that it is a COMPLETE FAILURE.

Here are your listed failure points:

None of the following have been solved or is even being worked on. 

No one is even addressing all these problems;

Here is their list of problems to solve. 'WHY THE HELL WON'T THEY WORK ON THEM?  This is your doctor and hospital responsibility to solve. They have been failing at this for decades, time to get new blood in there.

1. 30% get spasticity NOTHING THAT WILL CURE IT.

2. At least half of all stroke survivors experience fatigue Or is it 70%?

Or is it 40%?

NOTHING THAT WILL CURE IT.

3. Over half of stroke patients have attention problems.

NOTHING THAT WILL CURE IT.

4.  The incidence of constipation was 48%.

NO PROTOCOLS THAT WILL CURE IT.

5. No EXACT stroke protocols that address any of your muscle limitations.

6. Poststroke depression(33% chance)

NO PROTOCOLS THAT WILL ADDRESS IT. 

7.  Poststroke anxiety(20% chance) NO PROTOCOLS THAT WILL ADDRESS IT. 

8. Posttraumatic stress disorder(23% chance)  NO PROTOCOLS THAT WILL ADDRESS IT.

  9.  12% tPA efficacy for full recovery NO ONE IS WORKING ON SOMETHING BETTER.

10.  10% seizures post stroke NO PROTOCOLS THAT WILL ADDRESS IT. 

11. 21% of patients had developed cachexia NO PROTOCOLS THAT WILL ADDRESS IT. 

 

12. You lost 5 cognitive years from your stroke  NO PROTOCOLS THAT WILL ADDRESS IT.

13.  33% dementia chance post-stroke from an Australian study?

       Or is it 17-66%?

       Or is it 20% chance in this research?

NO PROTOCOLS THAT WILL ADDRESS THIS

And the excuses start here:

Emerging Perspectives in Stroke Rehabilitation

 Guillermo Asín Prieto, Roberto Cano-de-la-Cuerda,Eduardo López-Larraz, Julien Metrot, Marco Molinariand Liesjet E. H. van Dokkum

Abstract

 Poststroke characteristics vary significantly between patients and overtime,  necessitating the introduction of individualized therapy. (Excuse, excuses. I don't want to hear lazy excuses.)To provide the appropriate therapy to a patient at the correct time, several theoretical considerations must be taken into account—from a clear delineation of rehabilitation goals to an understanding of how a certain therapy can influence the underlying neuroplasticity. With regard to the differences between upper and lower limb motor recovery, both domains have experienced a change in perspective on rehabilitation.
 In gait training, assist-as-needed rehabilitation paradigms have become more pertinent, allowing each patient to find his/her individual walking rhythm and style within healthy boundaries. With the introduction of robotics in upper limb training(with or without virtual reality games that are attached), the amount of training and feedback that is provided to a patient can be increased without a rise in cost. The emerging consensus is to consider the various motor therapies and pharmacological interventions as part of a single, large toolbox instead of separate entities, guiding us toward a more patient-therapist-tailored approach, which is demonstrating tremendous efficacy.(I bet it is not 100% recovery and therefore is NOT tremendous.)