Spiritualita lidského pohybu je v zahraničí tématem zkoumání nejméně po dvě desetiletí, v České republice se jedná o zcela ojedinělou tematiku. Příspěvek se proto zabývá potenciálním propojením spirituální (duchovní) dimenze lidského bytí a možnostmi jeho transformace prostřednictvím pohybu ve vodě, resp. plavání, konkrétně plavecké školy Total immersion. Spiritualita není fenoménem pouze náboženským, ale může být chápána jako centrum prožívání osobnosti, jako hledání smyslu života (duch jako specifikum lidského způsobu bytí). Pro hledání tohoto rozměru v plaveckém pohybu byly použity metody ankety, volných slovních asociací, nedokončených vět (n = 28) a pojmových map (n = 17). Z výstupů je patrné, že prožívané propojení spirituality a kultivovaného pohybu je respondenty vnímáno jako platné, avšak vyčleňování plavání jako jedinečného prostředku pro získávání takových prožitků (či významnějšího než jiné sporty) možné není.

The report focuses on the domain of the conditioning training, specifically it deals with the training method called plyometrics. It summarises relevant knowledges by literature retrieval. The sources were czech and foreign publications. The aim of the report is to give a view of problems of plyometrics in the conditioning training of soccer players.

• Keywords
• transcendence, stav plynutí, Total Immersion,
• MeSH
• Adult MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Swimming physiology   psychology   MeSH
• Surveys and Questionnaires utilization   MeSH
• Spirituality MeSH
• Check Tag
• Adult MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Female MeSH

V dermatologické praxi se již řadu let sleduje alergogenní potence detergentů ve standardních sadách epikutánních testů. Diskuse o bezpečnosti těchto prostředků se dostává z odbomého tisku postupně i na stránky periodik především proto, že noví výrobci, kteri vstoupili v poslední době na náš trh, přišli i s novými reklamními metodami, na které jsme nebyli v minulosti zvyklí. Po zveřejnění naší předchozí práce, která se týkala testování pracích prostředků, jsme byli vyzváni redakcí Praktického lékaře, abychom obdobnou studii provedli u běžných mycích prostředků pro domácnost. Cílem této práce tedy byl pokus o posouzení alergologické nebo iritační potence těchto výrobků. Colon, Fairy Ultra, Finish, Jar, Lena, Prii, Pur a Sunlicht byly aplikovány v 5% vodném roztoku za použití klasických epikutánních testů 97 pacientům. Jar byl navíc použit ve formě imerzního pětidenního testu u 20 zdravých dobrovolníků. Ani u jedné epikutánně testované osoby nebyla prokázána alergie na uvedené detergenty ani nebyly pozorovány iritační změny. V opakovaných imerznich testech nebyly zjištěny statisticky signifikantní rozdíly stavu kůže při vyšetření před testem a po poslední koupeli.

In dermatological practice for some years the allergological potency of detergents is monitored in series of patch tests. Discussion on the safety of these detergents is slowly penetrating from the professional press to periodical journals, in particular because new manufacturers who entered recently our market have also new types of advertising methods to which we were not formerly used. After publication of our previous paper which pertained to the testing of laundry detergens we were asked by the editorial office of Praktický lékař to make a similar study with detergents used in homes. The objective of this work was thus an attempt to evaluate the allergological or irritant potency of these products. Colon, Fairy Ultra, Finish, Jar, Lena, Pril, Pur and Sunlicht were applied in a 5 % aqueous solution, using classical patch tests to 97 patients. Jar was moreover used as a five-day immersion test in 20 healthy volunteers. In none of the subjects involved in the patch allergy to the above detergents was found nor any changes caused by irritation. In repeated immersion tests no statistically significant differences in the status of the skin were found during the examination before the test and after the last immersion.

• MeSH
• Hypersensitivity diagnosis   etiology   MeSH
• Detergents adverse effects   MeSH
• Skin Tests MeSH

• Publication type
• Meeting Abstract MeSH

OBJECTIVE: Water immersion insertion and carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, as alternative colonoscopic techniques, are able to reduce patient discomfort during and after the procedure. We assessed whether the combination of water immersion and CO2 insufflation is superior in efficacy and patient comfort to other colonoscopic techniques. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized study, a total of 420 patients were randomized to either water immersion insertion and CO2 insufflation during withdrawal (water/CO2), water insertion and air insufflation during withdrawal (water/air), CO2 insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal (CO2/CO2), or air insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal (air/air). The main outcome was the success of minimal sedation colonoscopy, which was defined as reaching the cecum without switching to another insertion method and without additional sedation beyond the initial 2 mg of midazolam. Patient comfort during and after the procedure was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 404 patients were analyzed. The success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy in the water insertion arm (water/CO2 and water/air) was 97% compared with 83.3% in the gas insertion arm (CO2/CO2 and air/air; P<0.0001). Intraprocedural pain and bloating were significantly lower in the water/CO2 group than in all other groups. Patient discomfort in the water/CO2 group during 24 h after the procedure was comparable with that in the CO2/CO2 group and significantly lower than that in the air groups (water/air and air/air). No complications were recorded during the study. CONCLUSION: The combination of water immersion and CO2 insufflation appears to be an effective and safe method for minimal sedation colonoscopy. Overall patient discomfort was significantly reduced compared with that in other techniques.

• MeSH
• Conscious Sedation MeSH
• Abdominal Pain etiology   MeSH
• Adult MeSH
• Flatulence etiology   MeSH
• Insufflation MeSH
• Colonoscopy methods   MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Carbon Dioxide administration & dosage   MeSH
• Immersion MeSH
• Prospective Studies MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Patient Satisfaction MeSH
• Water MeSH
• Check Tag
• Adult MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH

Cíl studie: Zavádění ve vodní imerzi a insuflace oxidu uhličitého (CO2) jsou alternativní kolonoskopické techniky schopné redukovat dyskomfort pacienta během vyšetření a po něm. Cílem naší studie bylo zjistit, zda je kombinace vodní imerze a insuflace CO2 efektivnější a vede k vyššímu komfortu pacientů než ostatní kolonoskopické techniky. Metodika: V naší studii bylo celkem 420 pacientů randomizováno do čtyř skupin - zavádění přístroje ve vodní imerzi a vytažení při insuflaci CO2 (voda/CO2), zavádění přístroje ve vodní imerzi a vytažení při insuflaci vzduchu (voda/vzduch), zavádění i vytahování přístroje při insuflaci CO2 (CO2/CO2) a zavádění i vytahování přístroje při insuflaci vzduchu (vzduch/vzduch). Primárním sledovaným cílem byla úspěšnost kolonoskopie při minimální sedaci, která byla definována jako dosažení céka danou technikou bez použití vyšší dávky sedace než počáteční 2 mg midazolamu. Dále byl sledován komfort pacientů během vyšetření a po něm. Výsledky: Celkem byl analyzován soubor 404 pacientů. Úspěšnost kolonoskopie při minimální sedaci ve vodní větvi (voda/CO2a voda/vzduch) byla 97 % ve srovnání s 83,3 % v plynové větvi (CO2/CO2 a vzduch/vzduch) (p < 0,0001). Bolest a nadýmání při výkonu byly signifikantně nižší ve skupině voda/CO2 než v ostatních skupinách. Dyskomfort během 24 hod po výkonu byl srovnatelný ve skupinách voda/CO2 a CO2/CO2 a signifikantně nižší než ve vzduchových skupinách (voda/vzduch a vzduch/vzduch). Během studie nebyly zaznamenány žádné komplikace. Závěr: Kombinace vodní imerze a insuflace CO2 se zdá být efektivní a bezpečnou metodou kolonoskopie při minimální sedaci. Celkový dyskomfort pacientů byl významně snížen než při použití jiných technik.

Design: Water immersion insertion and carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation as alternative colonoscopy techniques are able to reduce patient discomfort during and after the procedure. We assessed whether the combination of water immersion and CO2 insufflation is superior in efficacy and patient comfort to other colonoscopy techniques. Methods: In a prospective study, a total of 420 patients were randomized to either water immersion insertion and CO2 insufflation during withdrawal (Water/CO2), water immersion insertion and air insufflation during withdrawal (Water/Air), CO2 insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal (CO2/CO2), or air insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal (Air/Air). The main objective pursued was the success of minimal sedation colonoscopy which was defined as reaching the caecum without switching to another insertion method and without additional sedation beyond the initial 2 mg of midazolam. In addition, patient comfort during and after the procedure was assessed. Results: A total of 404 subjects were analyzed. The success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy in the water insertion arm (Water/CO2 and Water/Air) was 97% compared with 83.3% in the gas insertion arm (CO2/CO2 and Air/Air) (p < 0.0001). Intraprocedural pain and bloating were significantly lower in the Water/CO2 group than in all other groups. Patient discomfort in the Water/CO2 group during the 24 hours after the procedure was comparable with CO2/CO2 and significantly lower than in the air groups (Water/Air and Air/Air). There were no complications recorded in the study. Conclusion: A combination of water immersion and CO2 insufflation appears to be an effective and safe method for minimal sedation colonoscopy. Overall patient discomfort was significantly reduced compared with other techniques.

• MeSH
• Conscious Sedation methods   utilization   MeSH
• Evaluation Studies as Topic MeSH
• Insufflation methods   utilization   MeSH
• Colonoscopy methods   instrumentation   utilization   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Midazolam administration & dosage   adverse effects   therapeutic use   MeSH
• Carbon Dioxide diagnostic use   MeSH
• Immersion MeSH
• Statistics as Topic MeSH
• Water diagnostic use   MeSH
• Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Water immersion insertion is able to reduce discomfort and need for sedation during colonoscopy. A cap attached to the colonoscope tip may improve insertion during air insufflation colonoscopy. According to several reports, both techniques alone may result in higher detection of neoplastic lesions. Our study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of cap-assisted water immersion compared to water immersion colonoscopy in minimally sedated patients. METHODS: A total of 208 consecutive outpatients were randomized to either cap-assisted water immersion (Cap Water) or water immersion colonoscopy (Water). The primary endpoint was cecal intubation time. RESULTS: Cecal intubation time was 6.9 ± 2.9 min in Cap Water and 7.4 ± 4.2 min in the Water arm (P = 0.73). Success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy was equal in both groups (92.9%, P = 1.00). From the endoscopist's point of view, there were non-significant trends towards lower discomfort (P = 0.06), less need for abdominal compression (P = 0.06) and lower difficulty score (P = 0.05) during Cap Water colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate was similar in both arms (44% in Cap Water vs 45% in the Water group, P = 0.88). There were no complications recorded in the present study. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with water immersion without cap, cap-assisted water immersion colonoscopy was not able to shorten the cecal intubation time. However, it has the possibility of reducing patient discomfort and difficulty of colonoscope insertion. Potential impact on improved detection of neoplastic lesions has to be evaluated by further studies.

• MeSH
• Adenoma diagnosis   MeSH
• Conscious Sedation methods   MeSH
• Abdominal Pain diagnosis   MeSH
• Equipment Design MeSH
• Colonoscopy methods   MeSH
• Colonoscopes * MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Pain Measurement methods   MeSH
• Cecal Neoplasms diagnosis   MeSH
• Follow-Up Studies MeSH
• Immersion * MeSH
• Prospective Studies MeSH
• Reproducibility of Results MeSH
• Patient Satisfaction MeSH
• Check Tag
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
• Comparative Study MeSH

AIM: Water-aided insertion as an alternative colonoscopy technique reduces patient discomfort. Warm water has been used in most published trials, but the use of cool water is easier and, if equally effective, could support the use of the water-aided technique in routine practice. METHOD: A double-blind, randomized, single-centre study was performed in which 201 patients were randomized to either cool (20-24 °C) or warm (37 °C) water immersion insertion. The primary outcome was caecal intubation time. The success rate of minimal sedation and patient discomfort were also assessed. RESULTS: The caecal intubation time for cool and warm water was similar (6.9 ± 3.5 vs 7.0 ± 3.4 min, P = 0.64). The respective success rates of minimal sedation colonoscopy (89.1% vs 90%, P = 1.00) and discomfort (P = 0.51) were no different. All other outcomes except a greater need for abdominal compression in the cool water arm (P = 0.04) were similar including the total procedure time, terminal ileum intubation rate, adenoma detection, length of the inserted scope, water volume, non-standard position rate, difficulty of the procedure and the patient's temperature sensation. CONCLUSION: The use of cool water did not modify the caecal intubation time compared with warm water. Exception for abdominal compression, all other end-points were no different. Cool water immersion is an alternative to the technically more demanding warm water immersion colonoscopy.

• MeSH
• Abdominal Pain etiology   MeSH
• Time Factors MeSH
• Cecum MeSH
• Operative Time MeSH
• Adult MeSH
• Double-Blind Method MeSH
• Hypnotics and Sedatives administration & dosage   MeSH
• Catheterization * MeSH
• Colonoscopy adverse effects   methods   MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Temperature * MeSH
• Water MeSH
• Check Tag
• Adult MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH

BACKGROUND: A growing interest in non-pharmacological approaches aimed at cognitive rehabilitation and cognitive enhancement pointed towards the application of new technologies. The complex virtual reality (VR) presented using immersive devices has been considered a promising approach. OBJECTIVE: The article provides a systematic review of studies aimed at the efficacy of VR-based rehabilitation. First, we shortly summarize literature relevant to the role of immersion in memory assessment and rehabilitation. METHODS: We searched Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and PubMed with the search terms "memory rehabilitation", "virtual reality", "memory deficit". Only original studies investigating the efficacy of complex three-dimensional VR in rehabilitation and reporting specific memory output measures were included. RESULTS: We identified 412 citations, of which 21 met our inclusion criteria. We calculated appropriate effect sizes for 10 studies including control groups and providing descriptive data. The effect sizes range from large to small, or no effect of memory rehabilitation was present, depending on the control condition applied. Summarized studies with missing control groups point out to potential positive effects of VR but do not allow any generalization. CONCLUSIONS: Even though there are some theoretical advantages of immersive VE over non-immersive technology, there is not enough evidence yet to draw any conclusions.

• MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Memory MeSH
• Stroke Rehabilitation methods   trends   MeSH
• Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy instrumentation   methods   MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Systematic Review MeSH

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyze and synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) interventions in the prevention of pain, fear and anxiety during burn wound care procedures. METHODS: In September and October 2021, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for relevant randomized controlled and crossover studies. Two independent authors described the following inclusion criteria for the search: patients undergoing burn wound care with applied VR treatment compared to any other or non-VR intervention. From a total of 1171 records, 25 met the inclusion criteria. After full-text screening, seven publications were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed for 18 studies by two independent authors. RevMan 5.4 was used for the statistical analysis, meta-analysis and visual presentation of the results. RESULTS: The meta-analysis showed a significant difference between VR treatment and standard care when analyzing pain outcome during wound care procedures (SMD = -0.49; 95% CI [-0.78, -0.15]; I2 = 41%) and in subgroup analysis when immersive VR was incorporated (SMD = -0.71; 95% CI [-1.07, -0.36]; I2 = 0%). No significant differences were found between VR treatment and standard care for range of motion outcome (SMD = 0.44; 95% CI [-0.23, 1.11]; I2 = 50%). CONCLUSIONS: VR seems to be an effective therapeutic support in burn wound care procedures for reducing pain. However, this systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the need for more research into the use of VR as a distraction method. Studies on larger groups using similar conditions can provide unequivocal evidence of the effectiveness of VR and enable the inclusion of such intervention in standard medical procedures.

• MeSH
• Pain MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Pain Management methods   MeSH
• Burns * therapy   MeSH
• Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy * MeSH
• Virtual Reality * MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Meta-Analysis MeSH
• Review MeSH
• Systematic Review MeSH

Použití vodní imerze při zavádění kolonoskopu je schopno snížit dyskomfort pacientů během kolonoskopie. Ve většině publikovaných studií byla použita teplá voda. Použití vody pokojové teploty je v praxi technicky méně náročné a průkaz srovnatelné efektivity by mohl podpořit použití vodní imerze v běžné endoskopické praxi. Metodika: Ve dvojitě zaslepené studii bylo celkem 201 pacientů náhodně zařazeno buď do skupiny kolonoskopie ve vodní imerzi s použitím chladné vody (20–24 °C), nebo do skupiny s použitím teplé vody (37 °C). Primárním cílem studie byl čas do intubace céka. Výsledky: Čas intubace céka byl srovnatelný; 6,9 ? 3,5 min ve větvi s chladnou vodou vs 7,0 ? 3,4 min ve větvi s teplou vodou (p = 0,64). Úspěšnost kolonoskopie při minimální sedaci (89,1 % při chladné vodě vs 90 % při teplé vodě; p = 1,00) a dyskomfort během kolonoskopie (p = 0,51) nebyly odlišné. Všechny ostatní parametry kromě častější potřeby zevní komprese břicha ve větvi s chladnou vodou (p = 0,04) byly srovnatelné – celkový čas, úspěšnost intubace terminálního ilea, detekce adenomů, délka zavedeného přístroje, objem spotřebované vody, nutnost komprese břicha a nestandardní polohy pacienta, obtížnost vyšetření z pohledu endo­skopisty a teplotní vjemy pacientů. Závěr: Ve srovnání s vodní imerzí s teplou vodou nedošlo při použití chladné vody ke změně času do intubace céka. Ostatní charakteristiky s výjimkou potřeby komprese břicha byly také srovnatelné. Kolonoskopie ve vodní imerzi s použitím chladné vody se zdá být srovnatelnou a technicky méně náročnou alternativou vodní imerze s teplou vodou.

Water-aided insertion as an alternative colonoscopy technique reduces patient's discomfort during the procedure. Warm water has been used in most of the published trials. Infusion of cool water is technically less demanding and a proof of its efficacy could support the use of water-aided technique in routine practice. Method: In a double-blind, randomized, single-centre study, a total of 201 patients were randomized to either cool water (20–24 °C) or warm water (37 °C) immersion insertion. The main outcome was a caecal intubation time. Results: Caecal intubation time was comparable; 6.9 ? 3.5 min in cool water vs 7.0 ? 3.4 min in warm water arm (P = 0.64). Success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy (89.1% for cool water vs 90% for warm water, P = 1.00) and discomfort during colonoscopy (P = 0.51) were not different. All other outcomes except higher need for abdominal compression in cool water arm (P = 0.04) were comparable – total procedure time, terminal ileum intubation rate, adenoma detection, length of the inserted scope, water volume, nonstandard position rate, difficulty of the procedure and patient‘s temperature sensation. Conclusion: In comparison with warm water immersion, the use of cool water did not modify the caecal intubation time. Other characteristics with the exception of abdominal compression rate were not different. Cool water immersion seems to be a comparable alternative to a technically more demanding warm water immersion colonoscopy. Key words: colonoscopy – colorectal cancer – water immersion – cool water The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study. The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE „uniform requirements“ for biomedical papers. Submitted: 2. 7. 2013 Accepted: 1. 8. 2013

• Keywords
• chladná voda,
• MeSH
• Adenoma diagnosis   MeSH
• Conscious Sedation MeSH
• Time Factors MeSH
• Double-Blind Method MeSH
• Colonoscopy * methods   standards   statistics & numerical data   MeSH
• Colorectal Neoplasms diagnosis   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Pain Measurement statistics & numerical data   MeSH
• Midazolam administration & dosage   MeSH
• Cold Temperature * diagnostic use   MeSH
• Posture MeSH
• Patient Satisfaction statistics & numerical data   MeSH
• Statistics as Topic MeSH
• Water * administration & dosage   diagnostic use   MeSH
• Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care statistics & numerical data   MeSH
• Hot Temperature diagnostic use   MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
• Comparative Study MeSH