Endovascular Stent-Graft Repair of a Complicated Penetrating Ulcer of the Descending Thoracic Aorta: A Word of Caution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report a pitfall encountered during stenting of a complicated penetrating ulcer of the descending thoracic aorta. CASE REPORT: A 65-year-old man was diagnosed with a complicated penetrating ulcer of the thoracic aorta. A 38-mm Talent endograft was implanted. On balloon dilation of the distal end of the endoprosthesis, the terminal bare stent became distorted and penetrated the aortic wall. A 42-mm endoprosthesis was immediately placed to exclude the aortic perforation. Control aortography demonstrated exclusion of the original proximal aortic ulcer and the distal iatrogenic aortic tear. CONCLUSIONS: Endoprostheses may present some drawbacks in terms of elasticity and adaptability to tortuous and angulated diseased aortas. Caution is advised in the treatment of penetrating aortic ulcers where the aortic wall is diffusely friable. In this condition, balloon dilation should be limited to the covered portion of the stent-graft to prevent stent distortion and erosion through the aortic wall.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".