| 1. |
- Vockenhuber, C., et al.
(författare)
-
Energy loss and straggling of MeV Si ions in gases
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B. - : ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV. - 0168-583X .- 1872-9584. ; 391, s. 20-26
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We present measurements of energy loss and straggling of Si ions in gases. An energy range from 0.5 to 12 MeV/u was covered using the 6 MV EN tandem accelerator at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, and the K130 cyclotron accelerator facility at the University of Jyvaskyla, Finland. Our energy-loss data compare well with calculation based on the SRIM and PASS code. The new straggling measurements support a pronounced peak in He gas at around 4 MeV/u predicted by recent theoretical calculations. The straggling curve structure in the other gases (N-2, Ne, Ar, Kr) is relatively flat in the covered energy range. Although there is a general agreement between the straggling data and the theoretical calculations, the experimental uncertainties are too large to confirm or exclude the predicted weak multi-peak structure in the energy-loss straggling. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Vockenhuber, Christof, et al.
(författare)
-
Energy-loss straggling of 2–10 MeV/u Kr ions in gases
- 2013
-
Ingår i: European Physical Journal D. - : EDP Sciences: EPJ. - 1434-6060 .- 1434-6079. ; 67:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Measurements have been performed on a time-of-flight setup at the Jyväskylä K130 cyclotron, aiming at energy-loss straggling of heavy ions in gases. Theoretical predictions based on recently developed theory as well as an empirical interpolation formula predict that straggling can be more than ten times higher than Bohr straggling in the MeV/u regime. Our measurements with up to 9.3 MeV/u Kr ions on He, N2, Ne and Kr targets confirm this feature. Our calculations show the relative contributions of linear straggling, bunching including packing, and charge exchange. Our results for stopping cross sections are compatible with values from the literature.
|
|
| 4. |
- Wedin, Rikard, et al.
(författare)
-
Complications and survival after surgical treatment of 214 metastatic lesions of the humerus
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. - : Elsevier BV. - 1058-2746 .- 1532-6500. ; 21:8, s. 1049-1055
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The humerus is the second most common long-bone site of metastatic bone disease. We report complications, risk factors for failure, and survival of a large series of patients operated on for skeletal metastases of the humerus. Materials and methods: This study was based on 208 patients treated surgically for 214 metastatic lesions of the humerus. Reconstructions were achieved by intramedullary nails in 148, endoprostheses in 35, plate fixation in 21, and by other methods in 10. Results: The median age at surgery was 67 years (range, 29-87 years). Breast cancer was the primary tumor in 31%. The overall failure rate of the surgical reconstructions was 9%. The reoperation rate was 7% in the proximal humerus, 8% in the diaphysis, and 33% in the distal part of the bone. Among 36 operations involving an endoprosthesis, 2 were failures (6%) compared with 18 of 178 osteosynthetic devices (10%). In the osteosynthesis group, intramedullary nails failed in 7% and plate fixation failed in 22%. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that prostate cancer was associated with an increased risk of failure after surgery (hazard ratio, 7; P < 0.033). The cumulative survival after surgery was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI] 34-47) at 1 year, 21% (95% CI, 15-26) at 2 years, and 16% (95% CI, 12-19) at 3 years. Conclusions: Our method of choice is the cemented hemiprosthesis for pathologic proximal humeral fractures and interlocked intramedullary nail for lesions in the diaphysis. Pathologic fractures in the distal humerus are uncommon and associated with a very high reoperation rate. Level of evidence: Level IV, Case Series, Treatment Study. (C) 2012 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees.
|
|
