Locked-In Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Long-Term Management and Prognosis

Taras Halan 1, Juan Fernando Ortiz 2 3, Dinesh Reddy 4, Abbas Altamimi 5, Abimbola O Ajibowo 6, Stephanie P Fabara 7

Affiliations

29 July 2021

-

doi: 10.7759/cureus.16727

Abstract

Locked-in syndrome (LIS) is a neurological disorder in which there is damage to the ventral pons and caudal midbrain. An ischemic cause, such as basilar artery occlusion, can often lead to LIS. LIS has three subtypes: classical, partial, and total. There is loss of motion in the four extremities in classical LIS, loss of horizontal gaze, and aphasia. In partial LIS, the patient still has some motor function. Complete LIS has the worst outcome because patients cannot blink or have vertical gaze, thus rendering them incapable of communicating. Most cases of LIS occur due to ischemic infarcts. These patients require a great deal of physical rehabilitation to regain partial motor ability and a means to communicate. While the clinical features and pathophysiology are known, the prognosis and long-term treatment remain unknown. We conducted a systematic review using the Meta-Analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) protocol. We use an advanced PubMed strategy using the inclusion criteria of observational studies or clinical trials conducted in the last 20 years, written in English, and conducted on humans. We excluded systematic reviews, literature reviews, metanalysis, and studies that did not meet the outcomes of our objectives. The prognosis of LIS is not good, and most patients remain locked in, with poor quality of life, especially motor functions. Respiratory failure and depression are big comorbidities. In the acute setting, patients benefit from rapid intervention. The subacute treatment needs to manage aggressively to improve functional scores best. The long-term treatment focus is on the quality of life and managing comorbidities.

Keywords: locked in syndrome; long term care; long-term care; prognosis; stroke.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
 

References

  1.  
    1. Minocycline and magnesium as neuroprotective agents for ischemic stroke: a systematic review. Ortiz JF, Ruxmohan S, Saxena A, et al. Cureus. 2020;12:0. - PMC - PubMed
  2.  
    1. Brainstem stroke: anatomy, clinical and radiological findings. Ortiz de Mendivil A, Alcalá-Galiano A, Ochoa M, Salvador E, Millán JM. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2013;34:131–141. - PubMed
  3.  
    1. The prevalence and characteristics of patients with classic locked-in syndrome in Dutch nursing homes. Kohnen RF, Lavrijsen JC, Bor JH, Koopmans RT. J Neurol. 2013;260:1527–1534. - PubMed
  4.  
    1. Reverse locked-in syndrome. Raibagkar P, Chavali RV, Kaplan TB, Kim JA, Nitka MV, Chou SH, Edlow BL. Neurocrit Care. 2017;27:108–114. - PMC - PubMed
  5.  
    1. Therapeutic approaches in locked-in syndrome. Papadopoulou SL, Dionyssiotis Y, Krikonis K, Lаgopati N, Kamenov I, Markoula S. Folia Med (Plovdiv) 2019;61:343–351. - PubMed
  6.  
    1. Locked-in syndrome: a review of 139 cases. Patterson JR, Grabois M. Stroke. 1986;17:758–764. - PubMed
  7.  
    1. Vertical gaze palsy caused by selective unilateral rostral midbrain infarction. Yokose M, Furuya K, Suzuki M, et al. Neuroophthalmology. 2018;42:309–311. - PMC - PubMed
  8.  
    1. Locked-in syndrome. Smith E, Delargy M. https://www.bmj.com/content/330/7488/406.short. BMJ. 2005;330:406–409. - PMC - PubMed
  9.  
    1. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PLoS Med. 2009;6:0. - PMC - PubMed
  10.  
    1. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. BMJ. 2011;343:0. - PMC - PubMed
  11.  
    1. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. BMJ. 2016;355:0. - PMC - PubMed
  12.  
    1. Locked-in syndrome in Sweden, an explorative study of persons who underwent rehabilitation: a cohort study. Svernling K, Törnbom M, Nordin Å, Sunnerhagen KS. BMJ Open. 2019;9:0. - PMC - PubMed
  13.  
    1. Beyond the gaze: communicating in chronic locked-in syndrome. Lugo ZR, Bruno MA, Gosseries O, et al. Brain Inj. 2015;29:1056–1061. - PubMed
  14.  
    1. Locked-in syndrome: improvement in the prognosis after an early intensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Casanova E, Lazzari RE, Lotta S, Mazzucchi A. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:862–867. - PubMed
  15.  
    1. Locked-in syndrome in children: report of five cases and review of the literature. Bruno MA, Schnakers C, Damas F, et al. Pediatr Neurol. 2009;41:237–246. - PubMed
  16.  
    1. Management of pathologic laughter and crying in patients with locked-in syndrome: a report of 4 cases. Sacco S, Sarà M, Pistoia F, Conson M, Albertini G, Carolei A. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:775–778. - PubMed
  17.  
    1. Opsoclonus-myoclonus syndrome in patients with locked-in syndrome: a therapeutic porthole with gabapentin. Pistoia F, Conson M, Sarà M. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85:527–531. - PMC - PubMed
  18.  
    1. Rehabilitation including treadmill therapy for patients with incomplete locked-in syndrome after stroke; a case series study of motor recovery. Høyer E, Normann B, Sørsdal R, Strand LI. Brain Inj. 2010;24:34–45. - PubMed
  19.  
    1. Locked-in syndrome with recovery. Khurana RK, Genut AA, Yannakakis GD. Ann Neurol. 1980;8:439–441. - PubMed
  20.  
    1. Locked-in syndrome responding to thrombolytic therapy. Johnson TM, Romero CS, Smith AT. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36:1928–1927. - PubMed
  21.  
    1. Comprehensive, technology-based, team approach for a patient with locked-in syndrome: a case report of improved function & quality of life. McNair K, Lutjen M, Langhamer K, Nieves J, Hreha K. Assist Technol. 2019;31:53–58. - PubMed

Page Navigation