Neurological diseases are often associated with a
significant burden of disability, which can severely affect different
aspects of patients' autonomy, notably motor and cognitive impairments.
These impairments can arise in a progressive and long-term manner, as
expected in neurodegenerative diseases and after acute conditions such
as strokes, traumatic brain injuries, or spinal cord injuries. The
clinical and social impact of these conditions is critical.
As outlined in the recent guidelines, stroke represents
the second cause of mortality worldwide, drawing attention to improving
the acute care of disease successfully, leading to a significant
reduction in mortality (1).
However, due to this central focus, the long-term
effects have been under-explored, leaving strokes a significant cause of
disability. Even if strokes are generally considered and managed as a
transient condition, most stroke survivors suffer from persistent
critical limitations in the activities of daily living. 50% of stroke
survivors report unmet needs such as incontinence, emotional problems,
mobility, pain, and speaking problems. However, most of them do not
receive a rehabilitative follow-up or other therapeutic approaches (2).
It is known that recovery is a complex process, which
probably implies a combination of spontaneous and learning-dependent
processes and adaptive behavior. Current evidence suggests that several
mechanisms are involved, including restoring the functionality of
damaged neural tissue (e.g., restitution), reorganization of spared
neural pathways (e.g., substitution), improvement of impaired skills in
the activities of daily living (e.g., compensation) (3) and last but not least, the recovery of cognitive skills.
Considering these aspects, there is cumulative evidence
that interdisciplinary rehabilitation treatment improves the outcomes of
stroke survivors when applied in acute and subacute phases after the
event (4, 5).
Indeed, the “formal” post-stroke motor rehabilitation usually ends 3–4
months after the event, based on the fact that motor and functional
recovery reaches a debated plateau 3–6 months after stroke (6). However, current evidence supports the hypothesis that cognitive (Wang et al.; Rohrbach et al.)
and motor skills may improve at any time after stroke, as well as in
other pathologies such as other conditions that might critically affect
the central nervous system (Cammisuli et al.; Elena et al.; Calafiore et al.) or muscular inherited muscular diseases (Alvarez et al.).
Brain plasticity phenomena are also widely involved in
the chronic phase, albeit to a lesser extent than in the subacute phase.
They lead to a modification of the cortical network, which can, in some
cases, lead to clinically significant functional improvements. We know
that rehabilitation may promote favorable neural plasticity (7, 8); notably, these processes may be reinforced by the use of innovative techniques and devices (Bressi et al.; Li et al.; Caimmi et al.; Peng et al.).
In addition, the use of innovative orthoses and prostheses can reduce
the impact that loss of function or organ damage has on the patient's
abilities, improving their emotional state and consequently increasing
social engagement (Pundik et al.).
However, future studies should focus on the development
of a theoretical model to better understand the neurophysiological
aspects of CNS recovery, as suggested by an interesting study protocol
proposed by Simis et al.
In chronic stroke, modifications and possible
modulations are linked not only to the brain and brain plasticity but
also to the peripheral skeletal muscle in an interdependent way. Azzollini et al. discuss this topic in their review.
In addition, long-term unmet needs are observed in many
domains, including social reintegration, health-related quality of life,
maintenance of activity, and self-efficacy. From this point of view,
stroke should be considered a chronic disease, and rehabilitation
processes should be designed considering also these aspects. In this
regard, rehabilitation services must have proper patient management in
the form of a dedicated clinical pathway considering each individual's
many different factors, including clinical, social, and economic
aspects. In this line, identifying the target patient subgroup is the
new challenge of translational medicine and, in particular, the
rehabilitation that has high costs and is resource consuming. Studies
that aim to identify prognostic factors, not only for conventional
therapy but even for technologically assisted training, are essential to
plan future effective rehabilitation plans (Wu et al.; Lee and Shin) or to identify subjects unable to return to work after a CNS lesion (Iosa et al.).
Additionally, some recent technology innovations may
help patients' follow-up adherence. These aspects should be considered
where the patient is unable to reach rehabilitation facilities or in
low-income countries where outcomes are less favorable, as suggested by Contrada et al..
Technology is not the only answer to meeting patients' needs in a long-term perspective.
Current literature suggests the positive impact of peer support programs (9), and Baumgartner-Dupuits et al. proposed a study protocol to clarify these aspects.
In another intriguing study, Grimm et al.
explored the potential impact of biographical music and biographical
language on physiological responses and the endocrine system of people
with disorders of consciousness.
From what has been briefly set out, a picture emerges in
which an initial acute phase must necessarily be followed by a phase
involving long-term interventions. In this phase, patient care must
include an intervention in which the various professional figures
together with territorial medical services must tune in and integrate to
allow the patient the best possible quality of life.