Open Repair of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm in the Modern Surgical Era: Contemporary Outcomes in 509 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent technologic advances in endovascular devices have led to alternative approaches to thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair; these innovative approaches must be compared with the "gold standard" of conventional open TAAA repair. To facilitate such comparisons, we evaluated contemporary outcomes of open TAAA repair. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed data collected prospectively between May 2006 and October 2010 regarding 509 consecutive patients who underwent TAAA repair. Standard univariate statistical comparisons were performed, as well as multivariable modeling, to identify predictors of survival. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients (59.9%) had degenerative aneurysms without dissection, and 204 (40.1%) had aortic dissection. There were 104 (20.4%) urgent or emergent repairs and 26 (5.1%) ruptured aneurysms. Operative adjuncts were used selectively. Of the 290 patients (57.0%) who underwent extensive repairs (Crawford extents I and II), 282 (97.2%) had cerebrospinal fluid drainage, 257 (88.6%) had left heart bypass, and 213 (73.4%) had intercostal/lumbar artery reattachment. The overall operative survival rate was 92.1% (469 of 509), and survival was better after elective repairs (93.8% [380 of 405]) than after urgent or emergent operations (85.6% [89 of 104], p = 0.005). Renal failure necessitating hemodialysis at discharge developed in 30 patients (5.9%). Permanent paraplegia occurred in 13 patients (2.6%). Actuarial survival was 79.1% ± 2.0% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary open TAAA repair is characterized by respectable early outcomes, particularly when repair is elective. Such results should be compared with those of evolving approaches, including endovascular and hybrid repairs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".