Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 31–35 | Cite as

Understanding stroke recovery and rehabilitation: Current and emerging approaches

  • Mary L. Dombovy


Although stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States, it is the significant disability among survivors that has the greatest impact on healthcare and society. It is currently accepted that comprehensive rehabilitation programs improve outcome following stroke. We are now trying to discern which specific therapeutic approaches work and which do not. Years of animal research have resulted in a better understanding of what occurs in the brain following stroke and how the brain may reorganize in response to treatment. Repetitive use of the involved extremities appears key to optimal behavioral recovery and optimal brain reorganization. The advent of technology such as functional magnetic resonance imaging and transcortical magnetic stimulation has allowed the study of brain reorganization following stroke and rehabilitation in humans. Certain drugs also appear to influence neuroplasticity after stroke. Timing of therapy and drug delivery appears crucial; the optimal "critical period" has not yet been clearly identified. New approaches are slow to reach widespread adoption. Neural transplantation combined with repetitive training approaches produces behavioral recovery in animals and offers hope for the future.


Stroke Patient Stroke Survivor Arch Phys Treadmill Training Body Weight Support 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Williams GR, Jingo JG, Matchar DB, et al.: Incidence and occurrence of total (first and recurrent) stroke. Stroke 1999, 30:2523–2528.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stineman MG, Maislin G, Fiedler RC, et al.: A prediction model for functional recovery in stroke. Stroke 1997, 28:550–556.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Indredavik B, Slordahl SA, Bakke F, et al.: Stroke unit treatment: long-term effects. Stroke 1997, 28:1861–1866.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leipert J, Bauder H, Milther WH, et al.: Treatment-induced cortical reorganization after stroke in humans. Stroke 2000, 31:1210–1216.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cramer SC, Moore CI, Finkelstein SP, et al.: A pilot study of somatopic mapping after cortical infarcts. Stroke 2000, 31:668–671.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Almi CR, Finger S: Towards a definition of recovery of function. In Brain Injury and Recovery: Theoretical and Controversial Issues. Edited by Finger S, Levere TE, Almi CB, Stein DG. New York: Pleenum Press; 1988:1–14.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stein D: Brain injury and theories of recovery. In Restorative Neurology: Advances in Pharmacotherapy for Recovery after Stroke. Edited by Goldstein L. Armonk, New York: Futura; 1998:1–34.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Infeld B, Davis SM, Lichtenstein M, et al.: Crossed cerebellar diaschasis and brain recovery after stroke. Stroke 1995, 26:90–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nudo RJ, Plautz EJ, Frost SB: Role of adaptive plasticity in recovery of function after damage to the motor cortex. Muscle Nerve 2001, 24:1000–1019. Excellent recent review of neuroplasticity following cortical injury.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kolb B, Brown R, Witt-Lajeunesse A, et al.: Neural compensations after lesions of the cerebral cortex. Neural Plasticity 2001, 8:1–16. An excellent review of how the brain reorganizes following injury.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leipert J, Unde I, Graf S, et al.: Motor cortex plasticity during forced-use therapy in stroke patients: a preliminary study. J Neurol 2001, 248:315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johansen-Berg H, Dawes H, Guy C, et al.: Correlation between motor improvements and altered MRI activity after rehabilitative therapy. Brain 2002, 125:2731–2742.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taub E, Uswatte G, Pidikiti R: Constraint-induced movement therapy: a new family of techniques with broad application to physical rehabilitation: a clinical review. J Rehab Res Devel 1999, 36:237–251.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taub E: Somatosemetry deafferentation research with monkeys: implications for rehabilitation medicine. In Behavioral Psychology in Rehabilitation Medicine: Clinical Applications. Edited by Ince LP: New York: Williams and Wilkens; 1998:371–401.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Taub E, Miller NE, Novack TA, et al.: Technique to improve chromic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993, 74:347–354.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nudo RJ, Plautz EJ, Milliken GW: Adaptive plasticity in primate motor cortex as a consequence of behavioral experience and neuronal injury. Neuroscience 1997, 9:13–23.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kopp B, Kunkel A, Muhlnickel W, et al.: Plasticity in the motor system related to constraint-induced improvement of movement after stroke. Neuroreport 1999, 10:807–810.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sterr A, Elbert T, Bertyhold I, et al.: Longer versus shorter daily constraint-induced movement therapy of chronic hemiparesis: an exploratory study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002, 83:1374–1377.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hesse S, Jahnke MT, Bertelt C, et al.: Gait outcome in ambulatory hemiparetic patients after a 4-week comprehensive rehabilitation program and prognostic factors. Stroke 1994, 25:999–1004.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lovely RG, Gregor RJ, Ray RR, et al.: Effects of training on the recovery of full weight bearing stepping in the adult spinal cat. Exp Neurol 1986, 92:421–435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hesse S, Bertelt C, Jahnke MT, et al.: Treadmill training with partial body-weight support as compared to physiotherapy in non-ambulatory hemiparetic patients. Stroke 1995, 26:976–981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Visintin M, Barbeau H, Korner-Bitensky N, et al.: A new approach to retrain gait in stroke patients through bodyweight support and treadmill stimulation. Stroke 1998, 29:1122–1128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kosak MC, Reding MJ: Comparison of partial body weightsupported treadmill gait training versus aggressive bracing assisted walking post-stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2000, 14:13–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    daCunha Filho IT, Lim PA, Qurey H, et al.: A comparison of regular rehabilitation and regular rehabilitation with supported treadmill ambulation training for acute stroke patients. J Rehabil Res Develop 2001, 38:37–47.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hesse S, Konrad M, Uhlenbrock D: Treadmill walking with partial body weight support versus floor walking in hemiparetic subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999, 80:421–427.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Macko RF, Smith GV, Dobrovolny CL, et al.: Treadmill training improves fitness reserve in chronic stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001, 82:879–885.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chae J, Yu D: A critical review of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for treatment of motor dysfunction in hemiplegia. Asst Technol 2000, 12:33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Feeney DM, Gonzalez A, Law WA: Amphetamine, haloperiodal and experience interact to affect the rate of recovery after motor cortex injury. Science 1982, 217:855–857.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Crisostomo EA, Duncan PW, Propst MA, et al.: Evidence that amphetamine with physical therapy promotes motor function in stroke patients. Ann Neurol 1988, 23:94–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goldstein LB: Influence of common drugs and related factors on stroke outcome. Curr Opin Neurol 1997, 10:52–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goldstein LB: Effects of amphetamines and small related molecules on recovery after stroke in animals and man. Neuropharmacology 2000, 39:852–859. Summary of research on the efforts of amphetamines and other drugs on the course of recovery following cerebral infarction in both animals and man.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schallert T, Hernandez T: GABAnergic drugs and neuroplasticity after brain injury. In Restorative Neurology: Advances in Pharmacotherapy for Recovery After Stroke. Edited by Goldstein, LB, Ammon K. New York: Futura Publishing; 1998:91–120.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Feeny DM, Westerberg VS: Novepinepheribe and brain damage: alpha novadrenergic pharmacology alters functional recovery after cortical trauma. Can J Phsychol 1990, 44:233–252.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schallert T, Kozlowski D: Brain damage and plasticity: userelated enhanced neural growth and overuse-related exaggeration of injury. In Cerebrovascular Disease: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Management. Edited by Ginsberg MD, Bogousslavisky J. New York: Blackwell Science; 1998:611–619.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nishimo H, Koide K, Aihara N, et al.: Striatal grafts in ischemic striation improve pallidal GABA release and passive avoidance. Brain Res Bull 1993, 32:517–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Burlongan CV, Kovtouzis TK, Jordan JR, et al.: Neural transplantation as an experimental treatment for cerebral ischemia. Neuroscience Biobehavior Rev 1997, 21:79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thompson T, Lunford LD, Kondziolka D: Restorative neurosurgery: opportunities for restoration of function in acquired, degenerative and idiopathic neurological diseases. Neurosurgery 1999, 45:741–752.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kondziolka D, Weschler L, Goldstein S, et al.: Transplantation of cultured human neuronal cells for patients with stroke. Neurology 2000, 55:565–569.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC, et al.: Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002, 83:952–959.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Merians AS, Jack D, Rares B, et al.: Virtual reality-augmented rehabilitation for patients following stroke. Phys Ther 2002, 82:898–915.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary L. Dombovy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Unity Health SystemUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations