Unique EMS training opportunity: The Center for Domestic Preparedness

Complete with a mock community and former hospital, the CDP give responders the opportunity to train on emergency and disaster response

from EMS via xlomafota13 on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2NtgDld
via IFTTT

Detection of the Novel optrA Gene Among Linezolid-Resistant Enterococci in Barcelona, Spain

Microbial Drug Resistance, Ahead of Print.


from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. publishers via xlomafota13 on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2wvaiP1
via IFTTT

Whole-Genome Analysis of a Human Enterobacter mori Isolate Carrying a blaIMI-2 Carbapenemase in Austria

Microbial Drug Resistance, Ahead of Print.


from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. publishers via xlomafota13 on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2PLTJHa
via IFTTT

Functional Outcome Scores With Standard Myoelectric Prostheses In Below-Elbow Amputees

Objective To report normative outcome data of prosthetic hand function in below elbow amputees using four different objective measurements closely related to activities of daily living (ADL). Design Seventeen patients who underwent prosthetic fitting after unilateral below-elbow amputation were enrolled in this study. Global upper extremity function was evaluated using the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP), the Clothespin-Relocation Test (CPRT) and the Box and Block Test (BBT), which monitor hand and extremity function. Results The patients achieved a mean ARAT score of 35.06 ± 4.42 of 57. The average SHAP score was 65.12 ± 13.95 points. The mean time for the CPRT was 22.57 ± 7.50 seconds and the mean score in the BBT was 20.90 ± 5.74. Conclusions In the current economic situation of health care systems, demonstrating the effectiveness and necessity of rehabilitation interventions is of major importance. This study reports outcome data of below-elbow amputees and provides a useful guide for expected prosthetic user performance. Correspondence: Oskar C. Aszmann, MD, Div. of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Dept. of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, AUSTRIA, Tel.: 0043 1 40400 69940; Fax.: 0043 1 40400 69880, Email: oskar.aszmann@meduniwien.ac.at Authors Disclosures: The authors have no competing interests to declare. This work was supported by the Christian Doppler Research Foundation a subdivision of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth, the Austrian Council for Research and Technology Development. Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

from Rehabilitation via xlomafota13 on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2ogZ4tH
via IFTTT

Ultrasonographic Imaging for the Diagnosis and Guided Injection of the Lateral Cord of the Plantar Fascia in a Jogger

No abstract available

from Rehabilitation via xlomafota13 on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2wqMmME
via IFTTT

Improving outcomes in oncological colorectal surgery by prehabilitation

Introduction The cornerstone in the treatment of colorectal cancer is surgery. A surgical event poses a significant risk of decreased functional decline and impaired health related quality of life. Prehabilitation is defined as the multimodal preoperative enhancement of a patient[DOUBLE HIGH-REVERSED-9 QUOTATION MARK]s condition. It may serve as a strategy to improve postoperative outcomes. Prehabilitation requires a multidisciplinary effort of medical health care professionals and a behavioral change of the patient. Methods The goal of prehabilitation is threefold: first, to reduce postoperative complications, second, to enhance and accelerate the recovery of the patient and third, to improve overall quality of life. In this article, we introduce the FIT-model illustrating a possible framework towards the implementation of both evidence-based and tailor-made prehabilitation for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. Results The model is comprised of three pillars: 'Facts' (how to screen patients and evidence on what content to prescribe), 'Integration' (data of own questionnaires assessing motivation of patients and specialists) and finally 'Tools' (which outcome measurements to use). Conclusions Developing implementable methods and defining standardized outcome instruments will help to establish a solid base for patient centered prehabilitation programs. Any party introducing prehabilitation requiring multidisciplinary teamwork and behavioral change can potentially use this framework. Address for correspondence and requests for reprints: Emma RJ Bruns, MD ORCID: 0000-0001-6967-4861, Department of surgery, Academic Medical Centre, PO Box 22660 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: +31-20-56662670 Fax: +31-20-5669243, E-mail: e.r.bruns@amc.nl During review process: e.r.bruns@amc.nl Category: Review Conflicts of interest and source of funding: None Previous presentation of research, manuscript or abstract: None All authors confirm that they have contributed to the submission according to the requirements of the American Journal of Physical Medicine and Prehabilitation Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

from Rehabilitation via xlomafota13 on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2PNIXAa
via IFTTT

The influence of local anesthesia depth on procedural pain during fluoroscopically-guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections: a randomized clinical trial

Objectives To evaluate the influence of the depth of local anesthesia application on procedural pain during lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). Design Sixty-eight patients were enrolled who were scheduled for single-level, unilateral fluoroscopically-guided lumbar TFESI. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either subcutaneous local anesthesia (group S) or deep local anesthesia (group D) for TFESI. The data related to pain and technical performance during the procedure was compared. Additionally, the incidence of injection site soreness was assessed 2 weeks after TFESI. Results Sixty-seven patients completed all assessments (group S, n=33; group D, n=34). There was no significant difference in procedural pain and discomfort level between the groups (P=0.151, P=0.183, respectively). Patients in group D showed lower behavioral pain scores (P=0.017). There was no significant difference in the numbers of needle manipulations, fluoroscopy time, and radiation dose during the procedure between the groups. Two patients in group S and three in group D complained of injection site soreness after TFESI for a few days, but there was no significant difference in its incidence (P=0.667). Conclusions Deep local anesthesia to reduce procedural pain during TFESI appears to have no significant clinical benefit compared with conventional subcutaneous local anesthesia. There is no external funding and no competing interests to declare. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ref: NCT03308136). Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

from Rehabilitation via xlomafota13 on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2BU9CJ1
via IFTTT