Magic™ Anti-Staphylococcus type D Staphylococcus Enterotoxin D Monoclonal antibody, Clone N230635

Purpose To investigate the fragmentation capacity, clearance time, and drilling speed of combined ultrasonic with impact dual-energy and single energy ultrasonic lithotripter devices. Methods Stone fragmentation and clearance tests were performed under direct view in an underwater layered hemisphere by four different operators using artificial stones (n = 10/operator). Time for complete clearance was measured. Drilling tests were performed using an underwater setup, consisting of a mounting rack for fixing the lithotripter handpiece with the probe in vertical position and in contact with the stone phantom placed on one side of a balance for defined and constant contact application pressure equivalent to 450 g load. Time until complete perforation or in case of no perforation, the penetration depth after 60 s into the stone sample was recorded. Four devices, one single energy device (SED), one dual-energy dual probe (DEDP), two dual-energy single probe (DESP-1, DESP-2), with different parameters were tested. Results Stone fragmentation and clearance speed were significantly faster for dual-energy device DESP-1 compared to all other devices (p < 0.001). Using DESP-1, the clearance time needed was 26.0 +/- 5.0 s followed by DESP-2, SED and DEDP requiring 38.4 +/- 5.8 s, 40.1 +/- 6.3 s and 46.3 +/- 11.6 s, respectively. Regarding the drilling speed, DESP-1 was faster compared to all other devices used (p < 0.05). While the drilling speed of DESP-1 was 0.69 +/- 0.19 mm/s, compared to 0.49 +/- 0.18 mm/s of DESP-2, 0.47 +/- 0.09 mm/s of DEDP, and 0.19 +/- 0.03 mm/s of SED. Conclusions The dual-energy/single-probe device combining ultrasonic vibrations with electromechanical impact was significantly faster in fragmentation and clearing stone phantoms as well as in drilling speed compared to all other devices.

Background: MRI performed at 3.0 T offers greater signal-to-noise ratio and better spatial resolution than does MRI performed at 1.5 T; however, for fetal MRI, there are concerns about the potential for greater radio frequency energy administered to the fetus at 3.0-T MRI. Purpose: To compare the specific absorption rate (SAR) and specific energy dose (SED) of fetal MRI at 1.5 and 3.0 T. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, all fetal MRI examinations performed with 1.5- and 3.0-T scanners at one institution between July 2012 and October 2016 were evaluated. Two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) steady-state free precession (SSFP), single-shot fast spin-echo, 2D and 3D T1-weighted spoiled gradient-echo (SPGR), and echo-planar imaging sequences were performed. SAR, SED, accumulated SED, and acquisition time were retrieved from the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine header. Data are presented as mean +/- standard deviation. Two one-sided tests with equivalence bounds of 0.5 (Cohen d effect size) were performed, with statistical equivalence considered at P< .05. Results: A total of 2952 pregnant women were evaluated. Mean maternal age was 30 years +/- 6 (age range, 12-49 years), mean gestational age was 24 weeks 6 6 (range, 17-40 weeks). A total of 3247 fetal MRI scans were included, with 2784 (86%) obtained at 1.5 T and 463 (14%) obtained at 3.0 T. In total, 93 764 sequences were performed, with 81 535 (87%) performed at 1.5 T and 12 229 (13%) performed at 3.0 T. When comparing 1.5- with 3.0-T MRI sequences, mean SAR (1.09 W/kg +/- 0.69 vs 1.14 W/kg +/- 0.61), mean SED (33 J/kg +/- 27 vs 38 J/kg +/- 26), and mean accumulated SED (965 J/kg +/- 408 vs 996 J/kg +/- 366, P < .001)were equivalent. Conclusion: Fetal 1.5- and 3.0-T MRI examinations were found to have equivalent energy metrics in most cases. The 3.0-T sequences,such as two-dimensional T1-weighted spoiled gradient-echo and three-dimensional steady-state free precession, may require modification to keep the energy delivered to the patient as low as possible. (C) RSNA, 2020