A nationwide, cross-sectional survey on unusual sleep postures and sleep-disordered breathing-related symptoms in people with Down syndrome.

BACKGROUND: People with Down syndrome (DS) often have sleep-disordered breathing (SDB). Unusual sleep postures, such as leaning forward and sitting, are observed in people with DS. This study aimed to clarify the prevalence of unusual sleep postures and their relationships with SDB-related symptoms (SDB-RSs), such as snoring, witnessed apnoea, nocturnal awakening and excessive daytime sleepiness. METHODS: A questionnaire, including demographic characteristics and the presence of unusual sleep postures, as well as SDB-RSs, was completed by 1149 parents of people with DS from Japan. RESULTS: Unusual sleep postures were recorded in 483 (42.0%) people with DS. These participants were significantly younger and had a history of low muscle tone more frequently than people without unusual sleep postures. In all ages, the leaning forward posture was more frequent than sitting. People with DS with unusual sleep postures suffered from SDB-RSs. Those who slept in the sitting posture had more frequent SDB-RSs than did those who slept with the leaning forward posture. Snoring, witnessed apnoea and nocturnal awakening were observed in 73.6, 27.2 and 58.2% of participants, respectively. Snoring increased with aging. Witnessed apnoea was more common in males and in those with hypothyroidism than in females and in those without hypothyroidism. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that there is a close relationship between unusual sleep postures and SDB-RSs. We recommend that all people with DS with unusual sleep postures should be checked for the presence of SDB.

Rib fracture timing in dynamic belt tests with human cadavers.

The purpose of this article is to present data from dynamic belt loading tests on the thorax of human cadavers where the exact timing of all rib fractures is known. To quantify rib fracture timing, a total of 47 strain gages were placed throughout the thorax of two human cadavers (one male, one female). To simulate thoracic loading observed in a severe car crash, a custom table-top belt loading device was developed. The belt loading pulse was configured to result in approximately 40% chest compression during a 150 ms load and unload cycle. The time histories of each strain gage were analyzed to determine the time of each rib fracture which was then directly compared with the reaction loads and chest displacements at that exact time, thereby creating a noncensored data set. In both cadavers, all rib fractures occurred within the first 35% compression of the thorax. As a general trend, fractures on the left side of the thorax, where the passenger belt passed over the abdomen, occurred first followed by fractures to the upper ribs on the right side of the thorax. By utilizing this technique, the exact timing of each injury level can be characterized relative to the mechanical parameters. For example, using rib fractures as the parameter for Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores in the female test, it was shown that AIS 1 injury occurred at a chest compression of 21.1%, AIS 2 at 21.6%, AIS 3 at 22.0%, and AIS 4 at 33.3%.

Nd:YAG oscillator amplifier system with a passive ring self-pumped phase-conjugate mirror.

A ring self-pumped phase-conjugate mirror with rhodium-doped barium titanate is used to correct aberrations in a laser-diode-pumped zigzag slab Nd:YAG oscillator-amplifier system. A diffraction-limited output of 360 mJ is achieved in a 36-ns pulse duration at a repetition rate of 100 Hz.

High-repetition rate 1-J green laser system.

A laser-diode-pumped high-repetition-rate zigzag slab Nd:YAG oscillator-amplifier system is developed as the pumping source of a high-average-power and terawatt Ti:sapphire chirped pulse amplification laser system. This system can produce a greater than 2-J high-energy fundamental laser pulse at a repetition rate of 100 Hz. The frequency-doubled energy with a diffusion-bonded KTP crystal is 1 J at a repetition rate of 100 Hz.

Comparison of the Rear Impact Biofidelity of BioRID II and RID2.

Researchers worldwide try to define a unique test procedure for the assessment of whiplash protection of seats and restraint systems in low speed rear-end impact. Apart from valid injury criteria and uniform crash conditions, there is no clear answer to the question, which dummy to use. There are two impact dummies currently available, which have been designed for rear-end impact testing: BioRID and RID2. Both dummies have been evaluated in several test programs, however, both dummies have never been compared with each other in the test conditions, which form the basis of their design. BioRID was based on and validated against volunteer tests performed by Davidsson and Ono, while RID2 was designed with and validated against PMHS tests done by Bertholon and compared to volunteer tests reported by Van den Kroonenberg. This paper compares the responses of both rear impact dummies and the Hybrid III for the test conditions mentioned above. The setup of Davidsson used a rigid seat with flexible back and head restraint panels, while the setups from Ono and Bertholon used a rigid seat without a head restraint, in spite of being not representative for real car seats. This configuration creates a well defined test environment which will not affect nor obscure the dummy response Results of the performance of both rear impact dummies and the Hybrid III in comparison to the human responses will be presented in this paper. The results show that both rear impact dummies are capable of simulating rear impact responses, especially the head-neck kinematics. A difference in load pattern was found, which could be relevant when injury criteria will be based on neck forces and/or torques. Moreover, the dummies show a different interaction with the seat back, illustrated by the differences in T1 kinematics: BioRID shows larger T1 rotation and more ramping up than RID2, while spine straightening is comparable for both dummies. The current study showed good scores for both dummies in the setup on which they are based. The biofidelity score of BioRID is slightly better than for RID2, while the performance of the Hybrid III is relatively poor. However, repeatability, reproducibility and handling are not part of the evaluation, even though they are important for the practical use of the dummies.