Background/Objectives: This study’s primary goals are to evaluate the effects of physical therapy on motor delays in children with Down Syndrome, identify the most successful interventions, look at current trends in the field, and suggest future directions for clinical and research development by reviewing the scientific literature published over the past ten years. Methods: Using reputable databases, including PubMed, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), Web of Science, and NIH, an electronic search of scholarly literature was carried out between January and April 2025. To organise the findings and select the most pertinent papers, a search strategy was required. Results: The studies analysed provide a complex picture of how different types of physical therapy interventions affect children and adolescents with Down syndrome. Conclusions: Physical therapy interventions suggest greater effectiveness during the early stages of motor development in children with Down Syndrome; however, the evidence, based on six heterogeneous studies, remains moderate and does not support definitive recommendations. In clinical practice, physical therapists are advised to design individualised programmes that address specific needs, utilising traditional therapies, online training, or movement stimulation techniques, and to systematically monitor their outcomes.

Obesity, the current pandemic, is associated with alarming rises among children and adolescents, and the forecasts for the near future are worrying. The present paper aims to draw attention to the short-term effects of the excess adipose tissue in the presence of a viral infection, which can be life-threatening for pediatric patients, given that the course of viral infections is often severe, if not critical. The COVID-19 pandemic has been the basis of these statements, which opened the door to the study of the repercussions of obesity in the presence of a viral infection. Since 2003, with the discovery of SARS-CoV-1, interest in the study of coronaviruses has steadily increased, with a peak during the pandemic. Thus, obesity has been identified as an independent risk factor for COVID-19 infection and is correlated with a heightened risk of severe outcomes in pediatric patients. We sought to determine the main mechanisms through which obesity is responsible for the unfavorable evolution in the presence of a viral infection, with emphasis on the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, in the hope that future studies will further elucidate this aspect, enabling prompt and effective intervention in obese patients with viral infections, whose clinical progression is likely to be favorable.

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common congenital anomaly worldwide and is associated with substantial infant morbidity and mortality. This narrative review synthesizes evidence linking CHD to alterations in the gut microbiome across neonatal, perioperative, and chronic stages and highlights a gut–heart–immune framework in which microbial imbalance, intestinal barrier dysfunction, and systemic inflammation may interact to influence clinical outcomes. Early infancy represents a potential window for microbiome and immune development, shaped by delivery mode and feeding, with many breastfed infants developing a Bifidobacterium-dominant community supported by human milk oligosaccharides. In CHD, abnormal splanchnic perfusion and hypoxemia, together with intensive care and perioperative exposures (fasting, delayed enteral feeding, antibiotics, acid suppression), may predispose to dysbiosis and impaired barrier function. Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass can act as a “second hit,” with evidence of increased gut permeability, endotoxemia, inflammatory activation, and biomarker signals of enterocyte injury and tight-junction disruption. Clinically, these mechanisms align with gut-sensitive outcomes including necrotizing enterocolitis (especially in ductal-dependent lesions), feeding intolerance, and postoperative infection-risk phenotypes. Interventions show mixed evidence: human milk exposure appears protective for NEC risk, synbiotics demonstrated outcome benefits in a randomized trial of cyanotic CHD infants, while probiotics may modify dysbiosis without consistently preventing intestinal injury and require careful safety frameworks. Key research gaps include the need for longitudinal stage-based cohorts, integration of microbiome profiling with barrier injury and perfusion markers, and standardized safety monitoring in intervention trials.

Background: This study aimed to compare psychomotor performance between regular League of Legends players and control participants. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 71 adults aged 18 to 30 years, divided into a player group, n = 35, and a control group, n = 36. Eleven outcomes assessing visual reaction time, target acquisition, response speed, accuracy, synchronization, and bilateral hand–eye coordination were evaluated using browser-based tasks and CogniFit assessments. Between-group differences were examined using Welch’s t-test with Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons. Mann–Whitney tests were conducted as sensitivity analyses. Results: After making the adjustments, nine outcomes remained significant. Players showed faster visual reaction times using their right hand (mean difference = −45.33 ms, 95% CI [−60.55, −30.12], d = −1.41) and left hand (−47.67 ms, [−65.09, −30.25], d = −1.29), quicker target acquisition with the right hand (−116.68 ms per target, [−153.69, −79.67], d = −1.49) and left hand (−156.01 ms per target, [−227.35, −84.67], d = −1.03), and shorter response times on the Simon Task (−0.107 s, [−0.153, −0.062], d = −1.12). They also obtained higher scores on HECOOR (1.11%, [0.28, 1.94], d = 0.63), UPDA-SHIF (0.44%, [0.13, 0.76], d = 0.66), and bilateral hand–eye coordination. Conclusions: These results indicate that League of Legends players exhibit better psychomotor skills on tasks requiring quick visual responses and good hand–eye coordination. Still, because this study used a cross-sectional design, we cannot draw causal conclusions. More research is needed to confirm these specific effects.