Great Mediastinal Vein Reconstruction Using Autologous Superficial Femoral Vein Superficial Femoral Vein Graft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Great mediastinal veins may be reconstructed using autologous, synthetic, or allograft conduits. Autologous conduits have been found superior to other conduit options. The superficial femoral vein (SFV) offers excellent early patency, minimal lower limb morbidity, and ease of harvest without accessory suture lines. Although rarely used, the SFV provides an acceptable alternative for conduit in large vein reconstructions. METHODS: Two recent cases using SFV for great mediastinal vein reconstruction were reviewed and operative technique of vein harvest detailed. RESULTS: This is the first report of successful reconstruction of a left superior vena cava using SFV conduit. Both superior vena cava (SVC) reconstructions reported were perfectly patent at intermediate term follow-up (20 and 14 months) as determined by computed tomography angiogram or magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Successful and durable reconstruction of the SVC or a persistent left subclavian vein is possible with minimal morbidity using the SFV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".