Forodesine Hydrochloride

Pairwise comparison of heavy dynamic strength and fast dynamic strength interventions on sprint performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 38(9): 1675–1686, 2024—Previous studies have shown that both heavy dynamic strength (HDS) and fast dynamic strength (FDS) training can be used to improve sprint performance; however, a review and meta-analysis investigating pairwise studies that compare these two training interventions have not been performed. The aims of the study were to systematically review and analyze HDS and FDS training methodologies and evaluate their effect size difference, in pairwise comparison studies to determine and compare their effects on sprint performance. Databases were systematically searched using Boolean phrasing to identify eligible articles, and meta-analyses were performed on the extracted data. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, which resulted in data from 138 subjects across 24 separate sprint assessments. Overall, there was a small effect in favor of FDS (standardized mean difference = 0.27, 95% confidence intervals [−0.07; 0.60], 95% prediction intervals [−1.01; 1.55]), but this was deemed not significant because of the wide-ranging prediction intervals. There is no distinguishable difference between HDS and FDS training on sprint performance. The wide-ranging prediction intervals suggest the variability is too great to determine whether one training type is more effective than the other. Practitioners should consider the individual needs of their athletes when deciding which training type to use for long-term sprint development.

Few studies have reported the impact of telescoping flow diverters (FDs) in intracranial aneurysm treatment. Our study compared aneurysms treated using telescoping FDs to those treated with a single FD and identified predictors of telescoping.

This was a single-center retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of aneurysms treated with FDs between 2011 and 2023. All patients who were treated with FDs for intracranial aneurysms were included in the study.

The study comprised 750 patients with 750 aneurysms treated using 871 FDs. The study cohort was divided into 85 patients requiring telescoping FDs and 655 who did not. Rates of hemorrhage (7.1% vs. 1.8%, P < 0.001), symptomatic stroke (5.9% vs. 2.6, P < 0.001), and asymptomatic stroke (1.2% vs. 0.8%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the telescoping cohorts. At final follow-up, the rate of nonocclusion (9.8% vs. 5.1%, P = 0.029) and the rate of complete occlusion (88.5% vs. 81.1%, P = 0.029) were significantly higher in the telescoping cohort. On multivariate analysis, fusiform morphology (odds ratio [OR]: 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-5.0, P = 0.03), increasing aneurysm height (OR: 1.0, 95% CI 1.0-1.1, P= 0.034), and the use of the Pipeline Embolization Device FD (OR: 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.4, P = 0.005) were independent predictors of telescoping.

Aneurysms with fusiform morphology, increasing aneurysm height and those that underwent flow diversion using Pipeline Embolization Device had higher odds for telescoping. Significantly higher rates of angiographic occlusion with the use of telescoping FD add to the literature on its efficacy in treating aneurysms of varying morphology.