Search

The UV–Visible Working Group of the Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Changes (NDACC) focuses on the monitoring of air-quality-related stratospheric and tropospheric trace gases in support of trend analysis, satellite validation and model studies. Tropospheric measurements are based on MAX-DOAS-type instruments that progressively emerged in the years 2010 onward. In the interest of improving the overall consistency of the NDACC MAX-DOAS network and facilitating its further extension to the benefit of satellite validation, the ESA initiated, in late 2016, the FRM4DOAS project, which aimed to set up the first centralised data processing system for MAX-DOAS-type instruments. Developed by a consortium of European scientists with proven expertise in measurements, data extraction algorithms and software design specialities, the system has now reached pre-operational status and has demonstrated its ability to deliver a set of quality-controlled atmospheric composition data products with a latency of one day. The processing system has been designed using a highly modular approach, making it easy to integrate new tools or processing updates. It incorporates advanced algorithms selected by community consensus for the retrieval of total ozone, lower tropospheric and stratospheric NO2 vertical profiles and formaldehyde profiles. The ozone and NO2 products are currently generated from a total of 22 stations and delivered daily to the NDACC rapid delivery (RD) repository, with an additional mirroring to the ESA Validation Data Centre (EVDC). Although it is still operated in a pre-operational/demonstrational mode, FRM4DOAS was already used for several validation and science studies, and it was also deployed in support of field campaigns for the validation of the TROPOMI and GEMS satellite missions. It recently went through a CEOS-FRM self-assessment process aiming at assessing the level of maturity of the service in terms of instrumentation, operations, data sampling, metrology and verification. Based on this evaluation, it falls under class C, which is a good rating but also implies that further improvements are needed to reach full compliance with FRM standards, i.e., class A.

In this paper we present a new method for retrieving tropospheric NO2 Vertical Column Density (VCD) from zenith-sky Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy (DOAS) measurements using mobile observations. This method was used during three days in the summer of 2011 in Romania, being to our knowledge the first mobile DOAS measurements peformed in this country. The measurements were carried out over large and different areas using a mobile DOAS system installed in a car. We present here a step-by-step retrieval of tropospheric VCD using complementary observations from ground and space which take into account the stratospheric contribution, which is a step forward compared to other similar studies. The detailed error budget indicates that the typical uncertainty on the retrieved NO2tropospheric VCD is less than 25%. The resulting ground-based data set is compared to satellite measurements from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) and the Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment-2 (GOME-2). For instance, on 18 July 2011, in an industrial area located at 47.03°N, 22.45°E, GOME-2 observes a tropospheric VCD value of (3.4 ± 1.9) × 1015 molec./cm2, while average mobile measurements in the same area give a value of (3.4 ± 0.7) × 1015 molec./cm2. On 22 August 2011, around Ploiesti city (44.99°N, 26.1°E), the tropospheric VCD observed by satellites is (3.3 ± 1.9) × 1015 molec./cm2 (GOME-2) and (3.2 ± 3.2) × 1015 molec./cm2 (OMI), while average mobile measurements give (3.8 ± 0.8) × 1015 molec./cm2. Average ground measurements over “clean areas”, on 18 July 2011, give (2.5 ± 0.6) × 1015 molec./cm2 while the satellite observes a value of (1.8 ± 1.3) × 1015 molec./cm2.

Background: Early literature on the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device reported 80-90% adequate aneurysm occlusion but low complete occlusion (40-55%). It is uncertain whether residual or recurrent aneurysms require re-treatment to prevent future rupture., Objective: To systematically review the literature to meta-analyze occlusion and complication rates after re-treatment of these aneurysms., Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were queried for 're-treatment' of 'recurrent' or 'residual' aneurysms treated with the WEB device. Studies reporting strategies and outcomes were included. Patient and aneurysm characteristics, outcomes, and complications were extracted. Meta-analyses were conducted on variables reported by three or more studies., Results: We included 15 studies of 220 patients (220 aneurysms) with a mean age of 57.8 years (95% CI 55.1 to 60.7 years). At baseline, 42.8% (95% CI 35% to 51%) of aneurysms were ruptured, had a mean 8.6 mm dome (95% CI 7.3 to 10 mm) and a mean 5.2 mm neck (95% CI 4.7 to 5.7 mm), and 69.85% were at bifurcations (95% CI 47.63% to 85.51%). At mean 11.2 months' follow-up (95% CI 8 to 15.6 months), 75.9% (95% CI 66.1% to 83.5%) had residual dome filling, predominantly from incomplete occlusion in 84.7% of cases (95% CI 66.6% to 93.9%). Endovascular management was used in 82.5% (95% CI 72.6% to 89.3%) of recurrences, with stent-assisted or flow diverter-assisted coil embolization being used in 42.4% (95% CI 32.7% to 52.8%). Overall, complication rates were 8.9% (95% CI 4.9% to 15.6%) thromboembolic and 8% (95% CI 4.3% to 14.2%) device-related. Complete angiographic occlusion after re-treatment was achieved in 64.1% (95% CI 52.6% to 74.2%), of patients, with 15.2% (95% CI 8.8% to 24.9%) requiring additional re-treatment., Conclusion: Our review reports excellent safety and modest occlusion outcomes with re-treatment of recurrent or residual aneurysms post-WEB embolization. Outcomes with observational management of residual or recurrent aneurysms are lacking, questioning the requirement for re-treatment. Endovascular strategies demonstrated excellent safety and additional re-treatment rates, highlighting their expanding role in post-WEB recurrences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JMD: Consulting fees: Medtronic, MicroVention, Imperative Care, Xenter, RapidPulse, Canon, Johnson & Johnson; Financial Interests: QAS.ai, Rist Neurovascular, Cerebrotech, Synchron, Hyperion; Honoraria: Medtronic; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Medtronic; Patents planned, issued or pending: QAS.ai; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: NIH NIHDS Strokenet; Stock or stock options: Synchron, Cerebrotech, QAS.ai, RIST. KVS: Consulting Fees: Boston Scientific, Canon Medical Systems USA, Inc, MicroVention, Medtronic, Stryker Neurovascular; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational event: Canon Medical Systems USA Inc; Stock or stock options: Boston Scientific, Access Closure Inc, Niagara Gorge Medical. EIL: Consulting fees: Clarion, GLG Consulting, Guidepoint Global, Medtronic, StimMed, Mosaic; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Medtronic, Penumbra, MicroVention (now Terumo Neuro), Integra; Patents planned, issued, or pending: Ultrasonic Surgical Blade; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: NeXtGen Biologics, Cognition Medical; Endostream Medical, IRRAS AB; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid: CNS, ABNS, UBNS; Stock or stock options (shareholder or ownership interest): NeXtGen Biologics, RAPID Medical, Claret Medical, Cognition Medical, Imperative Care, StimMed, Three Rivers Medical, Q’Apel, Dendrite; Other financial or non-financial interests: Haniva Medical Technology (Chief Medical Officer); Medtronic (National PI: Steering Committees for SWIFT Prime and SWIFT Direct trials; SHIELD trial; Site PI: STRATIS Study – Sub I); Penumbra (National PI: THUNDER trial); MicroVention (now Terumo Neuro) (Site PI: CONFIDENCE Study). AHS: Financial Interest/Investor/Stock Options/Ownership: Adona Medical, Inc, Basecamp Vascular SAS, Bend IT Technologies, Ltd, BlinkTBI, Inc, Borvo Medical, Inc, CerebrovaKP, Code Zero Medical, Inc, Cognition Medical, Collavidence, Inc, Contego Medical, Inc, CVAID Ltd, E8, Inc, Endostream Medical, Ltd, FreeOx Biotech, SL, Galaxy Therapeutics, Inc, Hyperion Surgical, Inc, Imperative Care, Inc, InspireMD, Ltd, Instylla, Inc, IRRAS AB, Launch NY, Inc, Neurolutions, Inc, Neurovascular Diagnostics, Inc, NeXtGen Biologics, Peijia Medical, PerFlow Medical, Ltd, Physician X, LLC, Piraeus Medical, Inc, Prometheus Therapeutics, Inc, Q’Apel Medical, Inc, QAS.ai, Inc, Radical Catheter Technologies, Inc, Rist Neurovascular, Inc. (Purchased 2020 by Medtronic), Sense Diagnostics, Inc, Serenity Medical, Inc, Silk Road Medical, Sim & Cure, Spinnaker Medical, Inc, StimMed, LLC, Synchron, Inc, T.G. Medical, Inc, Tulavi Therapeutics, Inc, Vastrax, LLC, Viseon, Inc, Viz.ai, Whisper Medical, Inc, Willow Medtech, Inc; Consultant/Advisory Board: Asahi Intecc Co. Ltd, Canon Medical Systems USA, Inc, CerebrovaKP, Cerenovus, Contego Medical, Inc, Cordis, Endostream Medical, Ltd, FreeOx Biotech, SL, Hyperfine Operations, Inc, Imperative Care, InspireMD, Ltd, IRRAS AB, Medtronic, MicroVention (now Terumo Neuro), Minnetronix Neuro, Inc, Peijia Medical, Perflow Medical, Ltd, Piraeus Medical, Inc, Prometheus Therapeutics, Inc, Q’Apel Medical, Inc, Serenity Medical, Inc, Shockwave Medical, Inc, StimMed, LLC, Stryker Neurovascular, Synchron Australia Pty Ltd, T.G. Medical, Inc, Vastrax, LLC, Vesalio, Viz.ai, Inc, WL Gore. National PI/Steering Committees: Cerenovus EXCELLENT and ARISE II Trial; Medtronic SWIFT PRIME, VANTAGE, EMBOLISE and SWIFT DIRECT Trials; MicroVention (now Terumo Neuro) FRED Trial & CONFIDENCE Study; MUSC POSITIVE Trial; Penumbra 3D Separator Trial, COMPASS Trial, INVEST Trial, MIVI neuroscience EVAQ Trial; Rapid Medical SUCCESS Trial; InspireMD C-GUARDIANS IDE Pivotal Trial; Patents: Patent No. US 11,464,528 B2, Date: October 11, 2022, CLOT RETRIEVAL SYSTEM FOR REMOVING OCCLUSIVE CLOT FROM A BLOOD VESSEL, Applicant and Assignee: Neuravi Limited (Galway), Role: Co-Inventor., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.)

Background: The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) is used in determining instability in patients with spinal metastases. Intermediate scores of 7 to 12 suggest possible instability, but there are no clear guidelines to address patients with these scores., Methods: We searched in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for studies that included patient demographics, tumor histology, surgical or radiotherapy management, and outcomes of patients with intermediate SINS. We reported mean differences and odds ratios (ORs) to assess differences between patients managed surgically versus with radiotherapy alone., Results: Thirteen articles, totaling 1822 patients with intermediate SINS were analyzed. In 5 studies (38.4%), the management decision was based on a tumor board review. There was no significant difference between surgical management versus radiotherapy (P = 0.24). When dichotomized into SINS 7-9 and 10-12, the OR for surgical management in the 10-12 group compared to the 7-9 group was 6.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.31-20.5, P = 0.0005). More renal cell carcinomas were managed surgically instead of with radiotherapy alone than other tumor types (OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.14-3.05, P = 0.01). There was no statistical difference in overall complications between the 2 treatment groups (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.49-2.54, P = 0.79). Vertebral fracture rates after any radiotherapy type ranged between 20% and 66%. The need for a surgical procedure, including stabilization, vertebroplasty, or kyphoplasty after radiotherapy ranged from 5% to 34.2%., Conclusions: Complication rates after surgery versus radiotherapy in the intermediate SINS category are similar, but the complication types differ. Patients in the 10-12 SINS subgroup, due to larger lytic area and higher probability of vertebral body fracture, could benefit from stabilization before radiotherapy., (Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)