Rehabilitaton of the Aphasic Patient

Marks, Morton; Taylor, Martha; Rusk, Howard A.

doi:10.1212/wnl.7.12.837

Cited by 31 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Investigators who have similarly studied largely or entirely head injury cases include Kleist, 10 Goldstein, 11 Schiller, 12 Wepman, 13 Russell and Espir, 14 Hecaen and Angelergues, 15 and Luria. 16 Studies based mainly on stroke patients, but including cases of head trauma or neoplasm, include those of Weisenberg and McBride, 17 Alajouanine, 24 Schuell, Jenkins and Jiminez-Pabon, 18 Marks, Taylor and Rusk, 19 and Brown and Simonson. 20 Sarno et al 21 evaluated 31 stroke patients, but deliberately selected only those severely affected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aphasia in acute stroke.

Brust¹,

Shafer²,

Richter³

et al. 1976

Stroke

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous surveys of stroke populations have offered only cursory information on language disturbance, and, conversely, few surveys of aphasic populations have dealth exclusively with stroke or with acute phenomena. This paper describes aphasia in 850 acute stroke patients consecutively registered by the Harlem Regional Stroke Program, of whom 177 (21%) were aphasic; of these, nine were of Broca's type, 24 were of Wernicke's type, 14 were of anomic, ten were conduction, seven were of "isolation" type, and 107 were "mixed." An unexpected finding was a significant over-representation of men among the nonfluent aphasics. During the following four to 12 weeks, 12% of fluent aphasics died, and 12% remained moderately or severely impaired; among survivors, aphasia improved in 74%, and in 44% it cleared completely. During the same period, 32% of nonfluent aphasics died, and 34% remained moderately or severely impaired; among survivors, aphasia improved in 52%, and in only 13% did it clear completely. In both fluent and nonfluent groups, hemiparesis and/or visual field cut were associated with poor prognosis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aphasia in acute stroke.

Brust¹,

Shafer²,

Richter³

et al. 1976

Stroke

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the earliest studies (Butfield and Zangwill 1946, Wepman 1951, Marks et al 1957, Leischner and Linck 1967, Broida 1977 only treated aphasics were considered and recovery was evaluated subjectively after treatment. Moreover, the patients included did not have the same amount of therapy, which varied from one to 110 therapy sessions in one study (Marks et al 1957) and from five to 290 in another (Butfield and Zangwill 1946).…”

Section: Aphasia Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the patients included did not have the same amount of therapy, which varied from one to 110 therapy sessions in one study (Marks et al 1957) and from five to 290 in another (Butfield and Zangwill 1946). All these papers firmly stated that aphasia therapy is effectual, but the studies are, unfortunately, beset with methodological weaknesses.…”

Section: Aphasia Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic factors in aphasia

Basso

1992

Aphasiology

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the literature on prognostic factors related to recovery from aphasia. These can be regrouped under two headings: anagraphical and neurological factors. Age, sex and handedness are the anagraphical factors considered. Aetiology, site and extent of lesion, and seventy and type of aphasia are the neurological ones. The effects of aphasia therapy are considered separately in more detail. Finally, the literature on patterns of recovery in groups of patients and in individual patients is reviewed. It is concluded that personal factors (age, sex, handedness) play a minor role in recovery from aphasia. Initial severity of aphasia and rehabilitation are the most important factors.

show abstract

“…1978: Basso cl al.. 1975Hagen. 1973], These data, together with earlier investiga tions that demonstrate the benefits o f reha bilitation [Sarno et al, 1970;Sands et al, 1969: Vignolo, 1964Marks et al, 1957;ButJicld and Zangwell, 1946;Weisenberg and McBride, 1935;Frazier and Ingham, 1920] and individual case studies too numerous to mention, have stimulated favorable com ments on aphasia rehabilitation [Benson. 1979], Coupled with the fact that modern medical ethics cannot realistically permit the conduct o f a rigorously controlled treatment study, this evidence dictates a need to put the efficacy question to rest, and to examine other aspects of the recovery processes [Edi torial, 1977: Barley, 1979, Lancet editorial suggests that it is difficult to formulate prognoses for indi vidual aphasic patients because o f the nu merous factors that impinge on recovery.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%