Search

BackgroundPerception is the ability to understand information from our senses. It allows us to experience and meaningfully interact with our environment. A stroke may impair perception in up to 70% of stroke survivors, leading to distress, increased dependence on others, and poorer quality of life. Interventions to address perceptual disorders may include assessment and screening, rehabilitation, non‐invasive brain stimulation, pharmacological and surgical approaches.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at perceptual disorders after stroke compared to no intervention or control (placebo, standard care, attention control), on measures of performance in activities of daily living. Search methodsWe searched the trials registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to August 2021. We also searched trials and research registers, reference lists of studies, handsearched journals, and contacted authors.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult stroke survivors with perceptual disorders. We defined perception as the specific mental functions of recognising and interpreting sensory stimuli and included hearing, taste, touch, smell, somatosensation, and vision. Our definition of perception excluded visual field deficits, neglect/inattention, and pain.Data collection and analysisOne review author assessed titles, with two review authors independently screening abstracts and full‐text articles for eligibility. One review author extracted, appraised, and entered data, which were checked by a second author. We assessed risk of bias (ROB) using the ROB‐1 tool, and quality of evidence using GRADE. A stakeholder group, comprising stroke survivors, carers, and healthcare professionals, was involved in this review update.Main resultsWe identified 18 eligible RCTs involving 541 participants. The trials addressed touch (three trials, 70 participants), somatosensory (seven trials, 196 participants) and visual perception disorders (seven trials, 225 participants), with one (50 participants) exploring mixed touch‐somatosensory disorders. None addressed stroke‐related hearing, taste, or smell perception disorders. All but one examined the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions; the exception evaluated non‐invasive brain stimulation. For our main comparison of active intervention versus no treatment or control, one trial reported our primary outcome of performance in activities of daily living (ADL): Somatosensory disorders: one trial (24 participants) compared an intervention with a control intervention and reported an ADL measure. Touch perception disorder: no trials measuring ADL compared an intervention with no treatment or with a control intervention. Visual perception disorders: no trials measuring ADL compared an intervention with no treatment or control. In addition, six trials reported ADL outcomes in a comparison of active intervention versus active intervention, relating to somatosensation (three trials), touch (one trial) and vision (two trials). Authors' conclusionsFollowing a detailed, systematic search, we identified limited RCT evidence of the effectiveness of interventions for perceptual disorders following stroke. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that perceptual interventions are effective. More high‐quality trials of interventions for perceptual disorders in stroke are needed. They should recruit sufficient participant numbers, include a 'usual care' comparison, and measure longer‐term functional outcomes, at time points beyond the initial intervention period. People with impaired perception following a stroke should continue to receive neurorehabilitation according to clinical guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy and to evaluate the management of patients with visual disabilities attending at the CEPRE Rehabilitation Program of University of Campinas. METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out based on medical records of patients with visual disabilities attending a vision rehabilitation program. The following variables were studied: gender, age, marital status, level of schooling, social security status, origin, type and cause of visual disability and vision rehabilitation actions. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 155 patients, 55.5% males, aged between 12 and 88 years, mean age 41 years old, 34.8% were blind and 65.2% with low vision disability. Of those blind patients, 81.8% reported acquired blindness, and the leading cause was diabetic retinopathy (33.3%), followed by glaucoma (16.6%), and retinal detachment (15.0%). Of those patients with low vision disability, 14.9% had diabetic retinopathy, 14.9% hereditary syndromes, and 10.9% age-related macular degeneration. Vision rehabilitation therapy included interdisciplinary team consultations helping patients go through the mourning process for the loss or impairment of vision, and promoting the enhancement of their skills for performing activities of daily living independently. The management of patients with low vision was also focused on vision rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: The health of the eyes of patients with chronic diseases such as diabetes is at risk. The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy was found to be a cause for visual disability, suggesting the need to assess these patients' access to health care and rehabilitation and promote health education for changing habits and improving quality of life.

Adult brain plasticity, although possible, is often difficult to elicit. Training regimens in adults can produce specific improvements on the trained task without leading to general enhancements that would improve quality of life. This paper considers the case of playing action video games as a way to induce widespread enhancement in vision.We review the range of visual skills altered by action video game playing as well as the game components important in promoting visual plasticity. Further, we discuss what these results might mean in terms of rehabilitation for different patient populations.

Pediatric keratoconus demonstrates several distinctive management issues in comparison with adult keratoconus with respect to under-diagnosis, poor compliance and modifications in treatment patterns. The major concerns comprise of the accelerated progression of the disease in the pediatric age group and management of co-morbidities such as vernal keratoconjuntivitis. Visual impairment in pediatric patients may affect social and educational development and overall negatively impact their quality of life. The treatment algorithm between adults and pediatric keratoconus has been similar; comprising mainly of visual rehabilitation with spectacles, contacts lenses (soft or rigid) and keratoplasty (lamellar or penetrating) depending on the stage of the disease. There is a paradigm shift in the management of keratoconus, a new treatment modality, corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL), has been utilized in adult keratoconic patients halting the progression of the disease. CXL has been utilized for over a 10 year period and based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the adult population; this treatment has been recently utilized in management of pediatric keratoconus. This article will present an update about current management of pediatric keratoconus with special focus on CXL in this age group.