Background: The aim of this study was to determine whether toe sliding is more likely to cause knee injuries than flatfoot sliding in curling. Methods: Twelve curlers participated in the study, each delivering stones. Six stones per volunteer were delivered using a flatfoot slide and 6 were delivered using a toe slide. The Pedar-X inshoe pressure system recorded the plantar pressure present during each of the slides, while a sagittal plane digital video recorded the body position of the curler. Measurements were taken from the video recordings using a software overlay program (MB Ruler), and this combined with the Pedar-X data gave the overall joint force in the tuck knee. Results: Results showed a statistically significant difference between theThe knee joint force calculated for flatfoot sliding and toe sliding, with toe sliding being was more than double that of flatfoot sliding (p<0.05). A There was a strong correlation was found between the increase in knee joint force and the increase in the moment arm of the ground reaction force. Images produced using the 3D Vicon  system confirm that toe sliding produces a larger moment arm than flatfoot sliding. Conclusion: The knee is on average the most common joint affected in curlers. Injuries are more likely to occur in toe sliding, compared to flatfoot sliding, due to the increase din force and moment, pushing the weight of the curler forward over the knee, which could make causing the adopted position to be less stable. This study recommends that curlers Curlers should might consider avoiding toe sliding in order to reduce the risk of knee injuries if the two types of delivery could be performed equally well.

Purpose. Contrast-enhanced (CE) angiographic techniques, such as computed tomographic angiography (CE-CTA), are most commonly used for follow-up imaging after endovascular aneurysm repair. In this study, CE-CTA and non-CE QISS-MRA were compared for the first time for assessing endoleaks and aneurysms at follow-up after abdominal EVAR. Methods. Our study included 20 patients (17 male, median age 79.8 years) who underwent radial QISS-MRA and CE-CTA after EVAR at their first follow-up examination. Two interventional radiologists evaluated datasets from both techniques in each patient concerning presence of endoleaks, types of endoleaks, aneurysm diameter, and image quality. Interobserver and intermodal agreement were assessed with Cohen’s Kappa. Results. Image quality was rated as excellent or good for both modalities by both observers. Ferromagnetic embolization materials cause hyperdense artifacts in CE-CTA causing aneurysm sac diameter measurements to be inaccurate by up to 1 cm. Type 2 endoleaks with low-flow characteristics in CE-CTA were overlooked compared to radial QISS-MRA. Compared to CE-CTA, all endoleaks after abdominal EVAR were detected and classified correctly on QISS-MRA. The interobserver agreement between CE-CTA and QISS-MRA was almost perfect, except for type 2 endoleaks, where agreement was substantial. Intermodal aneurysm diameter correlate “very strongly” for both observers. Conclusions. Radial QISS-MRA is a contrast agent free technique for diagnosing and monitoring all types of endoleaks and aneurysms in patients after abdominal EVAR. It provides information about specific clinical questions concerning aneurysm diameter and presence and types of endoleaks without radiation exposure and the side effects associated with iodine-based contrast agents.

No abstract

The novel Contour device is an intrasaccular flow disruption device designed for treatment of intracranial wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms. Outside its original purpose, Contour implantation can be used to treat aneurysms with a higher dome-to-neck ratio which would be suitable for conventional unassisted coil embolization. We compared both techniques in a retrospective single-center analysis. A total of 42 aneurysms from 42 patients with a dome-to-neck ratio of 1.6 or higher were included in this study. Data on technical success, implantation times, radiation dosages, procedural complications, reinterventions and recurrences were gathered and compared. Technical success was achieved in all cases with both techniques. Aneurysm embolization was achieved significantly faster in the Contour group compared to coiling (Overall p = 0.0002; r = 0.580; acute setting: p = 0.005, r = 0.531; elective setting: p = 0.002, r = 0.607). Significantly less radiation dosage was applied in the Contour group (Overall p = 0.002; r = 0.478; acute group p = 0.006; r = 0.552; elective group p = 0.045; r = 0.397). The number of complications was higher in the coiling group compared to the Contour group (Coiling 7/21 (33,3%); Contour 3/21 (14.3%). There was a higher rate of reinterventions in the coiling group (7.6% vs 21.4%). Outside its original intention, the Contour device seems to be a safe and fast alternative to coil embolization for the treatment of narrow-neck-aneurysms.