| 1. |
- Joffrin, E., et al.
(författare)
-
Overview of the JET preparation for deuterium-tritium operation with the ITER like-wall
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Nuclear Fusion. - : IOP Publishing. - 1741-4326 .- 0029-5515. ; 59:11
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- For the past several years, the JET scientific programme (Pamela et al 2007 Fusion Eng. Des. 82 590) has been engaged in a multi-campaign effort, including experiments in D, H and T, leading up to 2020 and the first experiments with 50%/50% D-T mixtures since 1997 and the first ever D-T plasmas with the ITER mix of plasma-facing component materials. For this purpose, a concerted physics and technology programme was launched with a view to prepare the D-T campaign (DTE2). This paper addresses the key elements developed by the JET programme directly contributing to the D-T preparation. This intense preparation includes the review of the physics basis for the D-T operational scenarios, including the fusion power predictions through first principle and integrated modelling, and the impact of isotopes in the operation and physics of D-T plasmas (thermal and particle transport, high confinement mode (H-mode) access, Be and W erosion, fuel recovery, etc). This effort also requires improving several aspects of plasma operation for DTE2, such as real time control schemes, heat load control, disruption avoidance and a mitigation system (including the installation of a new shattered pellet injector), novel ion cyclotron resonance heating schemes (such as the three-ions scheme), new diagnostics (neutron camera and spectrometer, active Alfven eigenmode antennas, neutral gauges, radiation hard imaging systems...) and the calibration of the JET neutron diagnostics at 14 MeV for accurate fusion power measurement. The active preparation of JET for the 2020 D-T campaign provides an incomparable source of information and a basis for the future D-T operation of ITER, and it is also foreseen that a large number of key physics issues will be addressed in support of burning plasmas.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hurley, Eoghan T., et al.
(författare)
-
Majority of Studies Show Similar Rates of Return to Play After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair or Latarjet Procedure: A Systematic Review
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery. - 0749-8063 .- 1526-3231. ; 40:2, s. 515 - 522
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To systematically review the current evidence in the literature to compare return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. Methods: A literature search was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comparative studies reporting return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure were included. Return to play was compared, with all statistical analysis performed using Review Manager, Version 5.3. Results: Nine studies with 1,242 patients (mean age: 15-30 years) were included. The rate of return to play was 61% to 94.1% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 72% to 96.8% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure. Two studies (Bessiere et al. and Zimmerman et al.) found a significant difference in favor of the Latarjet procedure (P < .05 for both, I2 = 37%). The rate of return to play at preinjury level was 9% to 83.8% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 19.4% to 80.6% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 0%). The mean time of return to play was 5.4 to 7.3 months among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 5.5 to 6.2 months in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 39%). Conclusions: Overall, the majority of studies showed no significant difference in rates of return to play or timing following arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedure. Furthermore, no study has found a significant difference in rate of return to play at pre-injury level, or rate of return to play among collision athletes. Level of Evidence: III, systematic review of Level I-III studies.
|
|
