In Reply: Transesophageal Echocardiography-Guided Ventriculoatrial Shunt Insertion
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To the Editor: We thank the authors for their letter1 and comments regarding our paper that presented the technique and initial experience using transesophageal echo (TEE) to guide insertion of the atrial catheter during a ventriculoatrial (VA) shunt insertion.2 We agree with the authors1 that there is a “lack of consensus about the optimal position of the [VA shunt distal] catheter tip.” The authors also indicate that the “lower third of the superior vena cava (SVC) is generally considered an acceptable target position.” The latter statement unfortunately lacks adequate support from the available literature and somewhat contradicts their first statement. Our study2 documented the feasibility of distal catheter placement at a very specific location and identified a need to ultimately define an optimal distal catheter position within the SVC or atrium. The report by Della Pepa et al3 describes the experience with “echocardiography (EKG)-guided VA shunt insertion” in 5 patients with good results and verified catheter placement with chest radiography. However, chest radiography is an indirect method, which only verified placement within the “correct range” corresponding to the lower third of the SVC and cannot be as precise as is possible with TEE. But what is not known is whether the potential differences regarding the location of the catheter tip in these 2 studies have any relationship with shunt function or risk of shunt failure. The authors expressed concern that the described TEE technique “may somehow [be] burdensome.” We respectfully disagree. As we have indicated, TEE is very much available at modern surgical centers. TEE is commonly used in the hospital setting and, for example, intraoperatively for cardiac surgery, and adopting TEE in the neurosurgical operating room is not unreasonable.4 Lastly, in examining the risks associated with TEE, Hilberath et al5 summarized that “in comparison with other diagnostic modalities, TEE is relatively safe and noninvasive. However, the insertion and manipulation of the ultrasound probe can cause oropharyngeal, esophageal, or gastric trauma.”5 It is important to note that this extensive review5 of TEE literature prior to 2010 also reinforces that the actual risk of complications with intraoperative use of TEE is very low. This is further supported by guidelines reported by Porter et al4 in 2015. The use of TEE is accepted as an adjunct for many intraoperative procedures and the risk associated with the use of TEE as a precise method for VA shunt distal catheter positioning is low. We would consider that the primary goals for further investigations should focus on achieving a combination of effective shunt function (ie, treatment of hydrocephalus), a low risk of shunt failure, and a low risk of treatment-associated complications. As part of this, we would advocate for additional research comparing different techniques for VA shunt distal catheter insertion. Funding This study did not receive any funding or financial support. Disclosures The authors have no personal, financial, or institutional interest in any of the drugs, materials, or devices described in this article.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle