The Effect of Single-Leg Stance on Dancer and Control Group Static Balance.

The purpose of this study was to compare kinetic differences of static balance between female dancers (D) with at least seven years of dance experience and female non-dancers (ND) who were typical college students. Participants were tested in single-leg stance. Both the dominant leg (DL) and non-dominant leg (NDL) were tested with the participants shod (S) and barefoot (BF). Kinetic variables (vertical, medio-lateral [ML], antero-posterior [AP] maximum ground reaction forces (GRF), and center of pressure (COP) ML and AP) were measured by a Bertec force platform at 1000 Hz with participants S and BF. Each subject's stance was measured over 3 × 30-second intervals. No significant differences (p≥0.05) existed between groups for height, body mass, or age. Significant differences existed between groups for balance time, AP GRF in both BF and S conditions for both DL and NDL, and ML GRF in BF NDL and S DL and NDL conditions. D and ND in BF and S conditions with DL and NDL static stance demonstrate different AP and ML GRF when balancing over a 30-second time interval. Data may suggest that ND are more prone to lose their balance. Further investigation is warranted to understand whether individuals in the rehabilitative field and athletic populations can use dance therapy for injury prevention and rehabilitation.

Impact of intraoperative hydrodebrider treatment on postoperative sinonasal inflammation.

BACKGROUND: The impact of intraoperative hydrodebrider sinus irrigation (HSI) during endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) on postoperative inflammation, endoscopy, and patient-reported outcomes has not been studied. METHODS: A clinical trial of 12 patients with symmetric chronic rhinosinusitis were prospectively randomized to HSI on one side after undergoing bilateral ESS. The contralateral side was not treated with any irrigation and served as an internal control. Preoperative computed tomography, endoscopic, 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), and symptom visual analog scale (VAS) scores for each side were obtained. At 1 and 3 months postsurgery, endoscopy, SNOT-22, and sinus VAS were recorded. Sinonasal mucus levels of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, IL-17a, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha were measured at the time of surgery, 1 and 3 months, postoperatively, from each side. RESULTS: VAS scores improved on both sides (p < 0.05) and SNOT-22 improved at all postoperative time points (p < 0.05). Endoscopic scores of HSI-treated sides did not improve compared with baseline. HSI had no additional significant impact on postoperative VAS at any time point. HSI significantly decreased IL-17a levels when compared with the control side at 1 month (p = 0.034) and 3 months (p = 0.031). No significant change was seen in TNF-alpha, IL-6, or IL-10 on either side at any time point. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative HSI at the time of ESS failed to establish any improvement in postoperative endoscopy or most local cytokine levels after ESS.

Hemarthrosis in a patient on warfarin receiving ceftaroline: a case report and brief review of cephalosporin interactions with warfarin.

OBJECTIVE: To report a possible interaction between warfarin and ceftaroline, resulting in hemarthrosis, and provide readers with an understanding of mechanisms of interaction between cephalosporins and warfarin. CASE SUMMARY: Ceftaroline was prescribed for an 85-year-old female with a therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) hospitalized for the treatment of cellulitis. She was subsequently readmitted with shoulder pain and a supratherapeutic INR. The patient was diagnosed with hemarthrosis, presumably related to elevated INR. Evaluation using the drug interaction probability scale for warfarin and ceftaroline yielded a score consistent with a possible or probable interaction. DISCUSSION: Cephalosporins may interact with warfarin through a variety of mechanisms, including potentiation of hypoprothrombinemia related to certain side chain groups, inhibition of P-glycoprotein, or alteration of gastrointestinal flora. All mechanisms reported in the medical literature as of April 2012 are briefly examined, but the latter is the most reasonable mechanism for a ceftaroline interaction with warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Health care providers should consider closely monitoring patients receiving antibiotics with activity against Enterobacteriaceae and warfarin, even if no direct mechanism of interaction has been reported. Further research regarding a ceftaroline-warfarin interaction is warranted.