Endovascular Repair of Thoracic Aortic Disease: Early and Midterm Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thoracic aorta disease remains a challenging problem, and despite improvements, open repair techniques are still associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This is a retrospective review of 53 consecutive patients with thoracic aortic pathology who were treated with endovascular repair between September 1998 and December 2004 at a tertiary-care hospital. Endovascular stent graft placement was performed on 23 elective and 30 emergent patients (34 male patients, mean age 66 years, 21 to 85 years). Completion angiography revealed no endoleak in 47 (89%) patients, a type I endoleak in 4 patients, and a type II endoleak in 2 patients. Operative 30-day mortality for elective aneurysms (n = 22), emergent aneurysms (n = 10), dissection (n = 3), penetrating aortic ulcers (n = 7), and trauma (n = 11) was 0%, 40%, 0%, 29%, and 9%, respectively. In total, 46 (87%) patients survived 30 days, and 36 (78.3%) of the survivors were discharged home free of complications. Two patients (4%) experienced paraplegia. Median follow-up was 22 months (1 to 72 months). Intermediate-term results revealed 41 (89%) patients free of endoleak, stent migration, or aneurysmal expansion. Two (4%) patients required reintervention with an additional stent graft. There were 2 (4%) patients with late aortic-related deaths and four (9%) patients with non-aorticrelated late deaths. Endovascular stent graft placement for thoracic aorta disease can be performed successfully and safely with good perioperative and intermediate-term outcomes. Stent graft complication and reintervention rates are low, whereas intermediate survival rates are good. Long-term efficacy still needs to be evaluated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".