After a stroke, patients can suffer from sarcopenia, which can affect recovery. This could be closely related to an impairment in nutritional status. In this preliminary analysis of a longitudinal prospective study, we screened 110 subjects admitted to our rehabilitation center after a stroke. We then enrolled 61 patients, who underwent a 6-week course of rehabilitation treatment. We identified a group of 18 sarcopenic patients (SG), according to the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 (EWGSOP2), by evaluating muscle strength with the handgrip test, and muscle mass with bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). With respect to the non-sarcopenic group (NSG), the SG at admission (T0) had worse muscle quality, according to the BIA-derived phase angle, and a lower score of MNA^®-SF. In contrast to the NSG, the SG also exhibited lower values for both BMI and the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) at T0 and T1. Moreover, 33% of the SG had a major risk of nutrition-related complications (GNRI at T0 < 92) and discarded on average more food during the six weeks of rehabilitation (about one-third of the average daily plate waste). Of note is the fact that the Barthel Index’s change from baseline indicated that the SG had a worse functional recovery than the NGS. These results suggest that an accurate diagnosis of sarcopenia, along with a proper evaluation of the nutritional status on admission to rehabilitation centers, appears strictly necessary to design individual, targeted physical and nutritional intervention for post-stroke patients, to improve their ability outcomes.

Robotic rehabilitation of the upper limb has demonstrated promising results in terms of the improvement of arm function in post-stroke patients. The current literature suggests that robot-assisted therapy (RAT) is comparable to traditional approaches when clinical scales are used as outcome measures. Instead, the effects of RAT on the capacity to execute a daily life task with the affected upper limb are unknown, as measured using kinematic indices. Through kinematic analysis of a drinking task, we examined the improvement in upper limb performance between patients following a robotic or conventional 30-session rehabilitation intervention. In particular, we analyzed data from nineteen patients with subacute stroke (less than six months following stroke), nine of whom treated with a set of four robotic and sensor-based devices and ten with a traditional approach. According to our findings, the patients increased their movement efficiency and smoothness regardless of the rehabilitative approach. After the treatment (either robotic or conventional), no differences were found in terms of movement accuracy, planning, speed, or spatial posture. This research seems to demonstrate that the two investigated approaches have a comparable impact and may give insight into the design of rehabilitation therapy.

Bilateral robotic rehabilitation has proven helpful in the recovery of upper limb motor function in patients with stroke, but its effects on the cortical reorganization mechanisms underlying recovery are still unclear. This pilot Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) aimed to evaluate the effects on the interhemispheric balance of unilateral or bilateral robotic treatments in patients with subacute stroke, using Quantitative Electroencephalography (qEEG). 19 patients with ischemic stroke underwent a 30-session upper limb neurorehabilitation intervention using a bilateral upper limb exoskeleton. Each patient was randomly assigned to the bilateral (BG, n=10) or unilateral treatment group (UG, n=9). EEG evaluations were performed before (T0) and right after (T0+) the first treatment session, after 30 treatment sessions (T1), and at 1-week follow-up (T2), in both eyes open and eyes closed conditions. From the acquired EEG data, the pairwise-derived Brain Symmetry Index (pdBSI) was computed. In addition, clinical evaluation was performed at T0 and T1 with validated clinical scales. After the treatment, a significant improvement in clinical and EEG evaluations was observed for both groups, but only the BG showed reduced pdBSI in delta and theta bands. In the cluster of sensorimotor channels, there was no significant difference between groups. The observed changes were not maintained at follow-up. No significant changes were observed in the pdBSI after a single rehabilitation session. Results suggest that balancing of interhemispheric symmetry comes along with a clinical improvement in the upper extremity and that the pdBSI can be used to investigate the mechanisms of neuronal plasticity involved in robotic rehabilitation after stroke.

Background/Objectives: Finding innovative digital solutions is fundamental to ensure prompt and continuous care for patients with chronic neurological disorders, whose demand for rehabilitation also in home-based settings is steadily increasing. The aim is to verify the safety and the effectiveness of two telerehabilitation (TR) models in improving recovery from subacute upper limb (UL) disability after stroke, with and without a robotic device. Methods: One hundred nineteen subjects with subacute post-stroke UL disability were assessed for eligibility. Of them, 30 patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to either the Robotic Group (RG), undergoing a 20-session TR program, using a robotic device, or the Non-Robotic Group (NRG), undergoing a 20-session TR program without robotics. Clinical evaluations were measured at baseline (T0) and post-intervention (T1, 5 weeks after baseline), and included assessments of quality of life, motor skills, and clinical/functional status. The primary outcome measure was the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0, evaluating the change in perceived disability. Results: Statistical analysis shows that patients of both groups improved significantly over time in all domains analyzed (mean decrease from baseline in the WHODAS 2.0 of 6.09 ± 2.62% for the NRG, and of 0.76 ± 2.21% for the RG), with a greater improvement of patients in the NRG in motor (Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity—motor function, Box and Block Test) and cognitive skills (Trail Making Test-A). Conclusions: This study highlights the potential of TR programs to transform stroke rehabilitation by enhancing accessibility and patient-centered care, promoting autonomy, improving adherence, and leading to better outcomes and quality of life for stroke survivors.

Background/Objectives: Soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) are extremely uncommon tumors with a high rate of local recurrence that often require very demolitive surgery. The aim of our study is to propose a specific rehabilitation protocol for patients with STSs, based on the kind of demolition and reconstructive surgery performed, and evaluate its effects. Methods: The protocol was developed on the basis of the clinical experiences of physiatrists and surgeons, as well as data from the literature, recommending timelines for postural steps, verticalization, walking, and therapeutic exercises, in accordance with wound healing times and in order to prevent complications from disuse and immobility. The Barthel Index Scale (BI), the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Adapted Patient Evaluation Conference System (APECS), and the 10 Meter Walk Test (10 MWT) were used to clinically evaluate patients before and after the rehabilitation treatment. Results: Thirty-one patients with primary STSs were enrolled. Following the rehabilitation program, we found a statistically significant improvement in mBI (p < 0.001), APECS (p ≤ 0.001), and NRS (p = 0.001). In a subgroup of patients (n = 18) assessed with the 10 MWT, a statistically significant increase in walking speed was observed (p = 0.012). Conclusions: Patients who completed rehabilitation following the proposed protocol, customized according to the surgical intervention type, demonstrated marked improvements in motor performance, ability in daily activities, walking, and pain. The proposed protocol can assist the multidisciplinary team of surgeons, oncologists, and rehabilitators in maintaining alignment on patient management, thereby ensuring clear indications regarding the activities that patients can and cannot undertake during the recovery period.