Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 400–404 | Cite as

The Potential for Increasing the Efficacy of the Rehabilitation of Stroke Patients with Neglect Syndrome

  • A. S. Galkin
  • E. R. Barantsevich
  • A. O. Gusev
  • T. I. Minnullin
  • V. V. Koval’chukEmail author
  • N. L. Samus
  • S. B. Fokina
  • M. D. Bogatyreva
  • M. A. Stepanenko

Objective. To evaluate the use of different treatment systems to increase the efficacy of the rehabilitation of patients with neglect syndrome (NS) after stroke. Materials and methods. The effects of observing a protocol for managing patients with NS and using Ceraxon (citicoline) on the extent of recovery of neurological functions, the level of daily adaptation, and elimination of NS were studied in stroke patients. Treatment results from 120 patients were analyzed. The extent of restoration of functions was assessed using the Lindmark scale, the level of daily adaptation using the Barthel scale and the Merton and Sutton scale, the state of cognitive functions using the MMSE and the Frontal Assessment Battery, and psychoemotional status using the Beck questionnaire. Treatment efficacy was also evaluated in terms of the absence of the characteristic signs of NS. Results and conclusion. These studies showed that complex rehabilitation following the protocol for managing patients with NS and Ceraxon significantly increased rehabilitation efficacy in this group of patients.


stroke rehabilitation neglect syndrome Ceraxon citicoline 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. B. Gekht, “Ischemic stroke: secondary prophylaxis and the main directions of pharmacotherapy during the recovery period,” Consilium Medicum, No. 5, 227–232 (2001).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. A. Epifanov and A. V. Epifanov, The Rehabilitation of Stroke Patients, MEDpress-inform, Moscow (2013), 2nd ed.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yu. V. Karakulova and L. Sh. Amirakhova, “Neuropsychological status and the quality of life of patients during the recovery period of ischemic stroke with neuroprotective therapy,” Urals. Med. Zh., No. 1, 21–24 (2013).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. I. Gusev, M. Yu. Martynov, and P. R. Kamchatnov, “Ischemic stroke. The current position,” Doktor Ru, 83, No. 5, 7–12 (2013).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. I. Skvortsova, I. E. Chazova, and L. V. Stakhovskaya, “Primary prophylaxis of stroke,” in: Quality of Life, Meditsina, Moscow (2006), Vol. 2, No. 13, pp. 72–77.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. P. Markin, “Rehabilitation of patients with acute cerebrovascular accidents,” Zh. Nevrol. Psikhiat., 12, No. 2, 41–45 (2010).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O. D. Ostroumova, V. M. Fomina, and T. F. Guseva, “Current concepts of the idea combination of antihypertensive agents for the prophylaxis of stroke,” Sistem. Gipertenz., 10, No. 3, 71–76 (2013).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Appelros, I. Nydevic, G. M. Karlsson, et al., “Recovery from unilateral neglect after right-hemisphere stroke,” Disabil. Rehabil., 22, 471–477 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. O. Karnath and C. Rorden, “The anatomy of spatial neglect,” Neuropsychologia, 50, 1010–1017 (2012).CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Maeshima, G. Truman, D. S. Smith, et al., “Is unilateral spatial neglect a single phenomenon?” J. Neurol., 244, 412–417 (1997).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. P. Warlow, M. S. Dennis, and J. Van Gijn, Stroke. A Practical Guide to Management, Blackwell Science, London (1997).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    I. V. Damulin and E. V. Kononenko, “Motor impairments after stroke: pathogenetic and therapeutic aspects,” Consilium Medicum, No. 2, 86–91 (2007).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Springer and F. Deutsch, Left Brain, Right Brain [Russian translation], Mir, Moscow (1983).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. A. Shevchenko, “Neglect syndrome in hemisphere stroke,” Zh. Nevrol. Psikhiat., 112, 40–43 (2012).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    V. V. Koval’chuk, “Characteristics of patients’ behavior after stroke significant neglect syndrome and extinction,” Proc. 5th Sci. Appl. Conf. of Neurologists of North-West Federal District of Russia, March 29–30, 2012, Syktyvkar, pp. 83–85.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. V. Koval’chuk, “Effects of Mexidol on neurological deficit, social- daily adaptation, and neglect syndrome and refusal in patients after stroke,” Zh. Nevrol. Psikhiat., 112, No. 2, Iss. 2, 52–57 (2011).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. F. Ticini, B. de Haan, and U. Klose, “The role of the temporo-parietal cortex in subcortical visual extinction,” J. Cogn. Neurosci., 22, 2141–2150 (2010).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Rode, P. Revol, Y. Rossetti, et al., “Looking while imagining. The influence of visual input on representational neglect,” J. Neurol., 68, 432–437 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    N. Smania, M. C. Martini, and G. Cambina, “The spatial distribution of visual attention in hemineglect and extinction patients,” Brain, 121, 1759–1770 (1998).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Binder, R. Marshall, and R. Lazar, “Distinct syndromes of hemineglect,” Arch. Neurol., 49, 1187–1194 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. Lindmark, “Evaluation of functional capacity after stroke with special emphasis on motor function and activities of daily living,” Scand. J. Rehabil. Med., 21, 1–40 (1988).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    F. Mahoney and D. Barthel, “Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index,” Md. State Med. J., 14, 61–65 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    N. Kwantabisa, Occupational Therapy ADL Checklist Self Maintenance. Merton and Sutton Community NHS Trust Stroke Rehabilitation Team Protocol, London (1999), pp. 7–9.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. F. Folstein, S. E. Folstein, and P. R. Hugh, “‘Mini-Mental State.’ A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician,” J. Psychiatr. Res., No. 12, 189–198 (1975).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. Dubois, A. Slachewsky, and I. Litvan, “The FAB: a Frontal Assessment Battery at bedside,” Neurology, 55, No. 11, 1621–1626 (2000).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. House, M. Dennis, and K. Hawton, “Methods of identifying mood disorders in stroke patients: experience in the Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project,” Age Ageing, 18, 371–379 (1989).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. L. Albert, “A simple test of visual neglect,” Neurology, 23, 658–664 (1973).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    H. P. Adams, Jr., B. H. Bendixen, L. J. Kappelle, et al., “Classification of subtype of acute ischemic stroke. Definitions for use in a multicenter clinical trial. TOAST. Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment,” Stroke, No. 1, 35–41 (1993).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. S. Galkin
    • 1
  • E. R. Barantsevich
    • 2
  • A. O. Gusev
    • 2
  • T. I. Minnullin
    • 1
  • V. V. Koval’chuk
    • 1
    Email author
  • N. L. Samus
    • 3
  • S. B. Fokina
    • 1
  • M. D. Bogatyreva
    • 4
  • M. A. Stepanenko
    • 1
  1. 1.St. Petersburg City Hospital No. 38St. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.First St. Petersburg State Medical UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia
  3. 3.St. Petersburg Nursing Home for Veterans of Science of the Russian Academy of SciencesSt. PetersburgRussia
  4. 4.Stavropol District Clinical HospitalStavropolRussia

Personalised recommendations