Abhyanga : Different contemporary massage technique and its importance in Ayurveda

Ayurveda is a ‘science of life’ which provides not only curative but also preventive principles for healthy and long life. Ayurveda is a life style, a science and an art of appropriate living that ensures health and longevity of human being. Abhyanga (oil massage) which is one among the Dinacharya, is also a part of pre therapeutic procedures of Panchakarma. Abhyanga is to be considered in Snehana therapy. As it nourishes the senses of mind and gives the strength. but if done in any region like localised in head, neck, legs etc then it is termed as Shiroabhyanga, Padabhyanga etc. Full body massage gives strength to whole body but localised massage gives strength to that particular part of the body. Localised massage can be practised by oneself. Thus it is easy to practise. But for Abhyanga one need to be dependent on massage trainer. The instructions to be followed under localised massage also. It gives its benefits; when it is done in right manner only

Yogic Intervention in Sexual Dysfunction - A Review

Yoga is an ancient practice with Eastern roots that involves both physical postures (Asanas) and breathing techniques (Pranayamas). Yoga therapy for male sexual problems can effectively be treated through Yoga therapy, particularly with the help of Yoga poses and breathing exercises, Yoga has proven itself highly very effective in the treatment of a number of incurable and sometimes terminable diseases. Then again, Yoga's therapeutic effects are just a spin-off and supplementary. Yoga which has proved to be very effective in the treatment of many impossible and incurable diseases, the therapeutic effect of Yoga is only a by product and incidental. Problems related to sex can very well be handled with Yoga as most often these problems are more related to the mind than body. Either they are caused by lack of confidence or stress or fatigue or fear and very few times some physical cause is there. There is also a cognitive component focusing on meditation and concentration, which aids in achieving the goal of union between the self and the spiritual. Although numerous empirical studies have found a beneficial effect of Yoga on different aspects of physical and psychological functioning, claims of Yoga's beneficial effects on sexuality derive from a rich but no empirical literature. The goal of this article is to review the philosophy and forms of Yoga, to review the no empirical and (limited) empirical literatures linking Yoga with enhanced sexuality, and to propose some future research avenues focusing on Yoga as a treatment for sexual disorder

Role of Panchakarma intervention in Amlapitta (Gastritis): A Critical Review

Amlapiita is a very common disease of present era and a disease of Annavaha Strotas, and is commonly observed in these days of modernization and industrialization. 30% of the general population is suffering from gastro-oesophageal reflux and gastritis resulting in heartburn. It is very troublesome disease and can give rise to many serious problems if not treated in time. Signs and symptoms of Amlapiita are very similar to gastritis or hyperacidity. According to conventional medical science the most common causes of gastritis are H. pylori infections and prolonged use of NonSteroidal Anti Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDS). Gastritis is believed to affect about half of people worldwide. In 2015 there were approximately 90 million new cases of this condition. As people get older the disease becomes more common. It, along with a similar condition in the first part of the intestines known as duodenitis, resulted in 50,000 deaths in 2017. The five procedure of Panchakarma done through several procedures purify the body system by removing morbid Doshas from the body. These purification methods are essential components of the curative management of these diseases that are not controlled by palliative management

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Safety of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs in Major Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study

Background Significant safety concerns remain surrounding the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) following gastrointestinal surgery, leading to wide variation in their use. This study aimed to determine the safety profile of NSAIDs after major gastrointestinal surgery. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency abdominal surgery with a minimum one-night stay during a 3-month study period were eligible for inclusion. The administration of any NSAID within 3 days following surgery was the main independent variable. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day postoperative major complication rate, as defined by the Clavien–Dindo classification (Clavien–Dindo III–V). Propensity matching with multivariable logistic regression was used to produce odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals. Results From 9264 patients, 23.9 % (n = 2212) received postoperative NSAIDs. The overall major complication rate was 11.5 % (n = 1067). Following propensity matching and adjustment, use of NSAIDs were not significantly associated with any increase in major complications (OR 0.90, 0.60–1.34, p = 0.560). Conclusions Early use of postoperative NSAIDs was not associated with an increase in major complications following gastrointestinal surgery