| Literature DB >> 21776360 |
Sonia das Dores Rodrigues1, Sylvia Maria Ciasca, Inês Elcione Guimarães, Karla Maria Ibraim da Freiria Elias, Carolina Camargo Oliveira, Maria Valeriana Leme de Moura-Ribeiro.
Abstract
Objective. To assess cognitive development and learning in children who have had strokes. Method. Twenty-nine stroke patients and 18 children with no brain lesions and no learning impairments were evaluated. For the cognitive assessment, Piaget's clinical method was used. Writing, arithmetic, and reading abilities were assessed by the school performance test. Results. The mean age at evaluation was 9.6 years. Among the 29 children, 20 had early lesions (mean of 2.4 years old). The stroke was ischemic in 18 subjects; there were 7 cases of recurrence. Six children could not answer the tests. A high index of cognitive delay and low performance in writing, arithmetic, and reading were verified. Comparison with the control group revealed that the children who have had strokes had significantly lower performances. Conclusion. In this sample, strokes impaired cognitive development and learning. It is important that children have access to educational support and cognitive rehabilitation after injury. These approaches may minimise the effects of strokes on learning in children.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21776360 PMCID: PMC3138155 DOI: 10.4061/2011/369836
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stroke Res Treat
Figure 1Grading criteria for Piaget's operation tasks.
Experimental group characteristics.
| Subject | Gender | Stroke Type | Stroke onset (y + m) | Age at assessment (y + m) | Affected hemisphere | Lesion area |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F | I | 7 + 2 | 7 + 10 | B | L: C R: S |
| 2 | F | I | 2 + 11 | 8 + 4 | L | S |
| 3 | M | H | 0 + 1 | 8 + 1 | R | S |
| 4 | M | H | 11 + 8 | 12 + 0 | L | C/S |
| 5 | M | H | 1 + 0 | 7 + 1 | B | L: C R: CB |
| 6 | M | I | 2 + 6 | 8 + 10 | B | L: C/S R: S |
| 7 | F | I | 2 + 4 | 10 + 2 | R | C/S |
| 8* | F | I | 0 + 5 | 9 + 5 | B | L: C R: C |
| 9 | M | I | 4 + 10 | 10 + 9 | L | C/S |
| 10* | F | I | 1 + 2 | 9 + 7 | B | L: S R: S |
| 11 | M | I | 1 + 8 | 12 + 0 | L | S |
| 12 | M | H | 10 + 2 | 12 + 7 | L | BS |
| 13 | M | H | 0 + 2 | 7 + 0 | R | S |
| 14* | M | I/H | 4 + 8 | 12 + 5 | L | BS |
| 15 | M | H | 0 + 9 | 8 + 1 | R | S |
| 16 | M | H | 3 + 8 | 9 + 10 | R | C |
| 17 | M | I | 0 + 7 | 7 + 7 | R | C |
| 18* | F | I | 1 + 0 | 12 + 4 | B | R: C/S L: C |
| 19 | F | I | 0 + 2 | 11 + 5 | R | C/S |
| 20* | F | H/I | 2 + 8 | 8 + 4 | R | C/CB |
| 21* | F | H | 0 + 2 | 12 + 4 | B | R:C/S L: S |
| 22 | F | I | 1 + 3 | 10 + 3 | B | L: C/S R: S |
| 23 | F | H | 0 + 9 | 10 + 1 | B | R: C/CB L: C/S |
| 24 | F | I | 2 + 11 | 8 + 9 | L | C |
| 25 | M | I | 7 + 0 | 10 + 9 | R | C/S |
| 26 | F | H | 0 + 9 | 12 + 8 | R | C/S |
| 27* | M | I | 4 + 10 | 12 + 4 | B | C/S |
| 28 | M | I | 0 + 11 | 11 + 11 | L | C/S |
| 29 | M | I | 6 + 5 | 8 + 6 | R | S |
*: recurrent stroke; F: female; M: male; H: haemorrhagic, I: ischemic; y: years, m: months; B: bilateral; R: right; L: left; C: cortical, S: subcortical; CB: cerebellum; TC: brainstem.
Physical sequelae at followup.
| Physical sequelae | Ischemic stroke ( | Haemorrhagic stroke ( | Ischemic and haemorrhagic stroke ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motor (hemiparesis and tetraparesis) | 17 | 6 | 1 |
| Speech dysfunction | 6 | 2 | — |
| Visual deficit | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Seizures | 10 | 4 | 1 |
| Conduct disorder | 3 | 1 | — |
| Global development retardation | 4 | 1 | — |
School data of the 23 children in the experimental group.
| Type of education | Ischemic stroke ( | Haemorrhagic stroke ( | Ischemic and haemorrhagic stroke ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specialised institution | 1 | — | — |
| Public school (regular classroom) | 9 | 6 | 2 |
| Public school (special classroom) | 2 | 2 | — |
| Private school (regular classroom) | 1 | — | — |
| School delay (in relation to age) | 8 | 5 | 1 |
Figure 2Cognitive evaluation outcomes of the experimental and control groups (EG: control group; CG: control group).
Figure 3Performance of the experimental group (EG) on the writing, arithmetic, and reading test.
Figure 4Performance of the control group (CG) on the writing, arithmetic, and reading test.
Figure 5Comparison of EG and CG performances on the three subtests (writing, arithmetic, and reading) of the school performance test.