Idiopathic toe walking and sensory processing dysfunction

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is generally understood that toe walking involves the absence or limitation of heel strike in the contact phase of the gait cycle. Toe walking has been identified as a symptom of disease processes, trauma and/or neurogenic influences. When there is no obvious cause of the gait pattern, a diagnosis of idiopathic toe walking (ITW) is made. Although there has been limited research into the pathophysiology of ITW, there has been an increasing number of contemporary texts and practitioner debates proposing that this gait pattern is linked to a sensory processing dysfunction (SPD). The purpose of this paper is to examine the literature and provide a summary of what is known about the relationship between toe walking and SPD.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Forty-nine articles were reviewed, predominantly sourced from peer reviewed journals. Five contemporary texts were also reviewed. The literature styles consisted of author opinion pieces, letters to the editor, clinical trials, case studies, classification studies, poster/conference abstracts and narrative literature reviews. Literature was assessed and graded according to level of evidence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Only one small prospective, descriptive study without control has been conducted in relation to idiopathic toe walking and sensory processing. A cross-sectional study into the prevalence of idiopathic toe walking proposed sensory processing as being a reason for the difference. A proposed link between ITW and sensory processing was found within four contemporary texts and one conference abstract.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Based on the limited conclusive evidence available, the relationship between ITW and sensory processing has not been confirmed. Given the limited number and types of studies together with the growing body of anecdotal evidence it is proposed that further investigation of this relationship would be advantageous.</p

A Combination of Midazolam and Ketamine for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in Adult Emergency Department Patients

: Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics of a combination of midazolam and ketamine for procedural sedation and analgesia in adult emergency department (ED) patients. Methods: This was a prospective, observational trial, conducted in the ED of an urban level II trauma center. Patients ≥ 18 years of age requiring procedural sedation and analgesia were eligible, and enrolled patients received 0.07 mg/kg of intravenous midazolam followed by 2 mg/kg of intravenous ketamine. Vital signs were recorded at regular intervals. The adequacy of sedation, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, and time to reach discharge alertness were determined. Descriptive statistics were calculated using statistical analysis software. Results: Seventy-seven patients were enrolled. Three were excluded due to protocol violations, three due to lack of documentation, and one due to subcutaneous infiltration of ketamine, leaving 70 patients for analysis. The average age was 31 years, and 41 (59%) were female. Indications for procedural sedation and analgesia included abscess incision and drainage (66%), fracture/joint reduction (26%), and other (8%). The mean dose of midazolam was 5.6 ± 1.4 mg and the mean dose of ketamine was 159 ± 42 mg. The mean time to achieve discharge criteria was 64 ± 24 minutes. Fivepatients experienced mild emergence reactions, but there were no episodes of hallucinations, delirium, or other serious emergence reactions. Eighteen (25%) patients recalled dreaming while sedated; twelve (17%) were described as pleasant, two (3%) unpleasant, three (4%) both pleasant and unpleasant, and one (1%) neither pleasant nor unpleasant. There were four (6%) cases of respiratory compromise, two (3%) episodes of emesis, and one (1%) case of myoclonia. All of these were transient and did not result in a change in the patient's disposition. Only one (1%) patient indicated that she was not satisfied with the sedation regimen. Conclusions: The combination of midazolam and ketamine provides effective procedural sedation and analgesia in adult ED patients, and appears to be safe.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74541/1/j.1553-2712.2000.tb01064.x.pd

Comparison of meperidine plus midazolam and fentanyl plus midazolam in procedural sedation: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial

This double-blind, randomized, prospective study was conducted to compare the analgesic and sedative efficacy of fentanyl and meperidine in orthopedic closed reduction of fractures and dislocations undertaken in the emergency department. Seventy consecutive adult patients with fractures or dislocations suitable for reduction were randomized to receive fentanyl (1 mcg/kg; n=36) or meperidine (0.5 mg/kg; n=34) in combination with midazolam (0.02 mg/kg). Vital signs and alertness scale scores of the patients were monitored. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to determine the degree of pain. There was no statistically significant difference between the VAS mean scores of the fentanyl and meperidine groups (t test, P=.772). The need for additional analgesic drugs was significantly more frequent in patients receiving meperidine (P=.018). No adverse events, such as hypotension or respiratory depression, were noted. Euphoria occurred in one patient in the fentanyl group. Although dose requirements differ, fentanyl and meperidine provide effective and reliable analgesia in closed reduction of fractures and dislocations