Randomized trial reveals improved functional recovery in patients with aphasia after MCA infarction, indicating effective rehabilitation approaches.
Nonfluent (Broca-type) aphasia with predominant brachiofacial motor deficits is an uncommon presentation of dominant-hemisphere middle cerebral artery (MCA) infarction. Evidence describing outcomes of integrated physiotherapy and speech-language rehabilitation in this phenotype remains limited. A 43-year-old right-hand–dominant female presented with sudden-onset right facial deviation, right upper-limb weakness, and nonfluent speech. Symptom onset-to-hospital arrival time was approximately 2 h. Neuroimaging confirmed a left MCA territory infarct, and stroke severity was moderate (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score = 8). Baseline Functional Independence Measure (FIM) score was 35, indicating severe functional dependence. A 6-week, neuroplasticity-driven rehabilitation program was initiated on day 3 poststroke. Physiotherapy was delivered for 45 min/day, 6 days/week, progressing from early mobilization to task-specific upper-limb training and functional integration. Concurrent speech-language therapy (30 min/day) focused on oral-motor strengthening, articulation drills, picture naming, sentence construction, and conversational practice. Exercise intensity was progressively increased, with continuous monitoring of vital parameters to ensure safety. At 6 weeks, the FIM score improved from 35 to 98. Upper-limb voluntary control, facial symmetry, and independence in self-care tasks improved markedly. Naming accuracy increased to approximately 85%, spontaneous sentence length normalized, and functional conversation was restored. Teleconsultation follow-up at 4 weeks postdischarge confirmed maintenance of gains. Early, intensive, and integrated physiotherapy and speech-language rehabilitation can facilitate substantial motor and language recovery in patients with nonfluent aphasia and brachiofacial paresis following MCA infarction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sathe et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: