The latest medical research on Brain Injury Medicine

The rapid advancement of technology-focused strategies in neurorehabilitation has brought optimism to individuals with neurological disorders, caregivers, and physicians while reshaping medical practice and training.

We critically examine the implications of technology in neurorehabilitation, drawing on discussions from the 2021 and 2024 World Congress for NeuroRehabilitation. While acknowledging the value of technology, it highlights inherent limitations and ethical concerns, particularly regarding the potential overshadowing of humanistic approaches. The integration of technologies such as robotics, artificial intelligence, neuromodulation, and brain-computer interfaces enriches neurorehabilitation by offering interdisciplinary solutions. However, ethical considerations arise regarding the balance between compensation for deficits, accessibility of technologies, and their alignment with fundamental principles of care. Additionally, the pitfalls of relying solely on neuroimaging data are discussed, stressing the necessity for a more comprehensive understanding of individual variability and clinical skills in rehabilitation.

From a clinical perspective, the article advocates for realistic solutions that prioritize individual needs, quality of life, and social inclusion over technological allure. It underscores the importance of modesty and honesty in responding to expectations while emphasizing the uniqueness of each individual's experience. Moreover, it argues for the preservation of human-centric approaches alongside technological advancements, recognizing the invaluable role of clinical observation and human interaction in rehabilitation.

Ultimately, the article calls for a balanced attitude that integrates both scientific and humanistic perspectives in neurorehabilitation. It highlights the symbiotic relationship between the sciences and humanities, advocating for philosophical questioning to guide the ethical implementation of new technologies and foster interdisciplinary dialogue.

Implantable vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) paired with volitional upper extremity rehabilitation can improve impairment and function among moderately to severely impaired, chronic stroke survivors. This study is a retrospective analysis of the in-clinic rehabilitation phase of the blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized pivotal VNS-REHAB trial to determine whether dosing parameters during in-clinic paired VNS therapy were associated with responder status and whether covariates might impact that determination.

Data were limited to 53 participants in the active VNS group who had received VNS implants prior to undergoing 6 weeks of in-clinic rehabilitation paired with VNS. Tasks were standardized across all participants. Dosing parameters included number of stimulations and task time. The primary outcome was the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Assessment (FMA-UE), evaluated at the end of 6 weeks (Post-1). Participants were classified a priori as responders based on an improvement of ≥6 points on the FMA-UE from baseline to Post-1.

Dosing parameters were not associated with FMA-UE responder status at the end of 6 weeks. Covariates including age, gender, paretic hand, baseline severity, and chronicity of stroke were also not significant associations of response.

While responders to VNS could be defined, therapy dosing and participant attributes did not provide greater specification for association of responder status. Limitations of this study include small sample size and non-linearity of the FMA-UE. Future studies will include reassessing responder categorization using more linear scales and examining stroke lesion characteristics to determine whether these measures are more sensitive to dosing parameters.

for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink).

To (1) characterize lifetime mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) exposures among male and female US military service members and Veterans (SMVs) and (2) evaluate sex-related differences in mild TBI exposures.

Lifetime history of mild TBI was measured via structured interview. All mild TBI characteristics were collected as part of this interview, including total lifetime number; environment (deployment vs. non-deployment); timing of injury (relative to military service and age); and mechanism of injury (blast-related vs. non-blast).

Most participants (n = 2323; 87.5% male; 79.6% Veteran) reported ≥1 lifetime mild TBI (n = 1912; 82%), among whom, many reported ≥2 lifetime mild TBIs. Female SMVs reported fewer total lifetime mild TBIs than male participants (P < 0.001), including fewer deployment-related (P < 0.001) and non-deployment (P < 0.001) mild TBIs. There were significant sex differences for total number of mild TBIs sustained before (P = 0.005) and during (P < 0.001) military service but not after separation from military service (P = 0.99). Among participants with a lifetime history of mild TBI, female SMVs were less likely to report ≥2 mTBIs (P = 0.003); however, male SMVs were more likely to report a mild TBI during military service (P = 0.03), including combat-related mild TBI (P < 0.001) and mild TBI involving blast (P < 0.001).

These findings inform clinical and research efforts related to mild TBI in US military SMVs. It may not be sufficient to simply measure the total number of mild TBIs when seeking to compare clinical outcomes related to mild TBI between sexes; rather, it is important to measure and account for the timing, environment, and mechanisms associated with mild TBIs sustained by female and male SMVs.

We sought to elicit key informant (KI) perspectives regarding decisional needs of Veterans with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) who are initiating insomnia disorder and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treatment within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Polytrauma/TBI System of Care (PSC). Specifically, we sought to understand: (1) information regarding treatment options that Veterans with mTBI require in order to make an informed decision; and (2) values used to guide decision-making (ie, personally meaningful aspects of the decision used to compare treatment options).

Not applicable.

Informational needs identified by both KI groups included information regarding outcomes and downsides of treatment, accessible delivery, treatment candidates, description of diagnosis, and level of commitment. Values used to guide decision-making for both insomnia disorder and OSA treatment included benefits, downsides, and availability of treatments. Values used to decide on insomnia treatments alone included time commitment, intrinsic management of sleep, beliefs regarding mental health treatment, and time course of benefit. Values used to decide on OSA treatment alone included intrusiveness of the treatment, appearance, and impact on bed partners.

The current study revealed the decisional needs of Veterans with mTBI who are initiating sleep disorder treatment. Findings can inform the development of decision aids and other efforts aimed at promoting patient-centered management of comorbid mTBI and sleep disorders, thereby improving care quality and clinical outcomes.

Studies investigating high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) in stroke typically emphasize treadmill training. However, a literature review suggested that seated devices such as a recumbent stepper or cycle offer a promising alternative for HIIE since exercise can be prescribed using peak power output (PPO). Therefore, this would give health care professionals the ability to monitor and adapt power output for the target heart rate range. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to examine the feasibility of prescribing short-interval, low-volume HIIE using PPO in chronic stroke.

We used several methods to test feasibility: (1)Acceptability: Measured by the percentage of participants who completed the entire HIIE protocol; (2) Implementation was assessed by the number of reported cardiac or serious adverse events during submaximal exercise testing and HIIE and the average percentage of participants reaching vigorous intensity, defined by the American College of Sports Medicine as at least 77% of age-predicted maximal heart rate (HR max ).

Data were available for 28 participants who were 32.2 (17.2) months post-stroke and 61.4 (11.9) years of age. Twenty-eight participants completed HIIE per protocol. No cardiac or serious adverse events occurred during the submaximal exercise test or during HIIE. The rapid switching between HIIE and recovery showed no evidence of blood pressure reaching unsafe thresholds. Average intensity during HIIE reached 76.8% HR max , which is slightly below the target of 77.0%.

A single bout of short-interval, low-volume HIIE, prescribed using PPO, was feasible in chronic stroke.

Video Abstract : Available for more insights from the authors (Supplemental Digital Content, Video, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A474 ).