Search

Physical inactivity is increasing among children globally and has been directly linked to the growing problems of overweight and obesity. We aim to assess the impact of a new mobile exergame, MobileKids Monster Manor (MKMM), in a school-based setting. MKMM, developed with input from youth to enhance physical activity, is wirelessly connected to an accelerometer-based activity monitor. Forty-two healthy students (11.3 ± 1.2 years old and 0.28 ± 1.29 body-mass index [BMI] z-score) participated in a randomized 4-week crossover study to evaluate the game intervention. The two study arms consisted of week-long baseline, game intervention/control, washout, and control/game intervention phases. All participants were required to wear an activity monitor at all times to record steps and active minutes for the study duration. MKMM was used during each arm's respective intervention week, during which children were asked to play the game at their convenience. When children were exposed to the game, an increase compared with the control phase of 2,934 steps per day (p = 0.0004, 95% CI 1,434-4,434) and 46 active minutes per day (p = 0.001, 95% CI 20-72) from baseline (12,299 steps/day and 190 active minutes/day) was observed. A linear regression model showed that MKMM yielded a greater increase in steps and active minutes per day among children with a higher BMI z-score, showing 10 percent more steps per day and 14 percent more active minutes per day relative to baseline, per unit increase in BMI z-score. In conclusion, MKMM increased steps and active minutes in a school-based environment. This suggests that mobile exergames could be useful tools for schools to promote physical activity and combat obesity in adolescents.

There is an urgent need for both the scientific development and clinical validation of novel therapies for acute spinal cord injury (SCI). The scientific development of novel therapies would be facilitated by a better understanding of the acute pathophysiology of human SCI. Clinical validation of such therapies would be facilitated by the availability of biomarkers with which to stratify injury severity and predict neurological recovery. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples were obtained over a period of 72 h in 27 patients with complete SCI (ASIA A) or incomplete SCI (ASIA B or C). Cytokines were measured in CSF and serum samples using a multiplex cytokine array system and standard enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) techniques. Neurological recovery was monitored, and patient-reported neuropathic pain was documented. IL-6, IL-8, MCP-1, tau, S100beta, and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) were elevated in a severity-dependent fashion. A biochemical model was established using S100beta, GFAP, and IL-8 to predict injury severity (ASIA A, B, or C). Using these protein concentrations at 24-h post injury, the model accurately predicted the observed ASIA grade in 89% of patients. Furthermore, segmental motor recovery at 6 months post injury was better predicted by these CSF proteins than with the patients' baseline ASIA grade. The pattern of expression over the first 3 to 4 days post injury of a number of inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6, IL-8, and MCP-1 provides invaluable information about the pathophysiology of human SCI. A prediction model that could use such biological data to stratify injury severity and predict neurological outcome may be extremely useful for facilitating the clinical validation of novel treatments in acute human SCI.

Study Design. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted. Objective. To compare the efficacy of patient-conitrolled analgesia (PCA) with that of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) in terms of-overall patient satisfaction with postoperative pain -management after lumbar spine fusion. of Background -Data. in numerous surgical disciplines, PCEA and PCA have proved to be effective methods of postoperative pain control. The literature states that with PCEA, less opioid use is required during the immediate postoperative period to maintain equivalent -pain control compared to PCA. Continuous epidurat infusion has been assessed in spine fusion patients, but PCEA has not been evaluated. Furthermore, this- is the first prospective randomized clinical trial to assess overall patient-satisfaction while stratifying patients for both anx iety level and preoperative opioid use. Methods. For this study, 74 patients were assigned randomly to -one of two treatment groups, with PCA and PCEA administered in a double-blind manner for a 3-day postoperative course. All the patients. received both PCA and PCEA delivery systems. Assessment was by a blinded, independent observer. Overall patient satisfaction with pain management was assessed by a visual analog scale at the end of postoperative day 3. Secondary measures included: three scales from the Functional Independence - Measure instrument; opioid quantity; side effects; and length of hospital stay, Results. Thirty-eight patients worn randomized to PCA, and 36 were randomized. to PCEA. No baseline variable differences between the groups were observed. The results showed no difference between the groups on the following measures: overall patient satisfaction with pain management, ambulation, and length of stay. The PCA patients used significantly more opioid than the PCEA patients. Conclusions. Both postoperative analgesic regimens provided good overall patient satisfaction. The only clinical advantage of PCEA over PCA for spine fusion patients was the lower amount of opioid consumed, althouoh the PCEA group experienced significantly more side effects than the PCA group. There were no other significant differences. Therefore, patient or physician preference could select either postoperative pain management delivery system.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted.To compare the efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with that of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) in terms of overall patient satisfaction with postoperative pain management after lumbar spine fusion.In numerous surgical disciplines, PCEA and PCA have proved to be effective methods of postoperative pain control. The literature states that with PCEA, less opioid use is required during the immediate postoperative period to maintain equivalent pain control compared to PCA. Continuous epidural infusion has been assessed in spine fusion patients, but PCEA has not been evaluated. Furthermore, this is the first prospective randomized clinical trial to assess overall patient satisfaction while stratifying patients for both anxiety level and preoperative opioid use.For this study, 74 patients were assigned randomly to one of two treatment groups, with PCA and PCEA administered in a double-blind manner for a 3-day postoperative course. All the patients received both PCA and PCEA delivery systems. Assessment was by a blinded, independent observer. Overall patient satisfaction with pain management was assessed by a visual analog scale at the end of postoperative day 3. Secondary measures included: three scales from the Functional Independence Measure instrument; opioid quantity; side effects; and length of hospital stay.Thirty-eight patients were randomized to PCA, and 36 were randomized to PCEA. No baseline variable differences between the groups were observed. The results showed no difference between the groups on the following measures: overall patient satisfaction with pain management, ambulation, and length of stay. The PCA patients used significantly more opioid than the PCEA patients.Both postoperative analgesic regimens provided good overall patient satisfaction. The only clinical advantage of PCEA over PCA for spine fusion patients was the lower amount of opioid consumed, although the PCEA group experienced significantly more side effects than the PCA group. There were no other significant differences. Therefore, patient or physician preference could select either postoperative pain management delivery system.