ABSTRACT
Vertical neglect represents a visuospatial deficit occurring as a possible consequence of acquired brain injury (ABI). Differently from unilateral spatial neglect on horizontal space, vertical neglect is poorly studied in the literature and rarely assessed in clinical practice. In the available studies, the terms "radial," "vertical," and "altitudinal" neglect are often used interchangeably, although they do not describe the same spatial dimension. "Altitudinal" and "vertical" refer to the sagittal plane, whereas "radial" refers to the transverse plane. The term "vertical" is sometimes used interchangeably with respect to both axes. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the main characteristics of vertical neglect after ABI, the diagnostic tools used, and the treatment options. We also proposed a clarification of the manifestations and characteristics of vertical and radial neglect. The 23 articles reviewed, showed that the vertical neglect occurred more frequently on the lower space than on the upper space, that its presence was associated with horizontal neglect, and that it could also occur with compromise of the radial space, with the near radial being more common. The most frequent etiology associated with vertical neglect is vascular, particularly ischaemic. The lesions side are very heterogeneous and include both cortical and subcortical areas and all lobes, although the temporal lobe is most affected. With regard to the assessment tools, paper and pencil tasks are the most commonly used diagnostic tools to identify vertical neglect, although in recent years the use of computer-based tasks increased. Taken together, our results suggest that vertical neglect may be underestimated in patients with right hemisphere lesions and should always be assessed, especially in cases where the patient shows signs of horizontal neglect. The clinical assessment of vertical neglect is very important since it can lead to important functional limitations in everyday life, such as poor wheelchair handling, stumbling over unnoticed obstacles located below (or above), walking down stairs, taking off shoes.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Family caregivers (FC) contribute to reducing the misdiagnosis rate in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC). Unfortunately, the recent pandemic of COVID-19 imposed drastic restrictions that limited the access of FC to the sensory/cognitive stimulation protocols. Telemedicine approaches have been implemented to avoid discontinuity in care pathways and to ensure caregivers involvement in rehabilitation programs. AIM: The aim was to investigate whether the presence of FC remotely connected might help clinicians in eliciting higher cortically mediated behavioral responses in patients with DOC. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Post-acute Unit of Neurorehabilitation. POPULATION: DOC due to severe brain injury. METHODS: Consecutive patients with DOC were assessed by means of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) by two expert examiners. Each patient underwent to five assessments in two weeks in three different conditions: 1) by the examiner only (standard); 2) with the verbal stimulation given by the FC remotely connected by PC tablet (caregiver in remote); and 3) with the verbal stimulation given by the FC physically present (caregiver in presence). RESULTS: Thirty patients with DOC (VS/UWS=10; MCS=20; mean age: 51, range: 21-79; vascular: 16; anoxic: 6; TBI=8) and their FC were enrolled. Higher total scores of CRS-R were recorded both in "caregiver in remote" and in "caregiver in presence" than in standard condition (standard vs. remote, Z=2.942, P=0.003; standard vs. presence, Z=3.736, P<0.001). Furthermore, the administration of the CRS-R with a FC, elicited higher levels of behavioral responses in MCS patients, than CRS-R performed in standard condition. In particular, 2 patients out of 30 (6.66%) showed higher scores and better diagnosis when the CRS-R was administered with FC in remote. Similarly, 5 out of 30 patients (16.66%) showed better diagnoses when the CRS-R was administered with FC in presence. Five patients changed diagnosis between standard and presence conditions (3 MCS- were diagnosed as MCS+; 2 MCS+ were diagnosed as conscious). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings add new evidence regarding the beneficial role of family members in the diagnosis of DOC, even mediated by telemedicine approach. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: In future guidelines, FC should have an active and supporting role in the diagnostic and rehabilitative process of DOC.
