MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086011612 · doi:10.1016/s1010-7940(02)00617-6

Resection of Kommerell's diverticulum and left subclavian artery transfer does not always relieve symptoms

2002· letter· en· W2086011612 on OpenAlexaff
Igor E. Konstantinov

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiverticulum (mollusc)MedicineResectionLeft subclavian arterySubclavian arterySurgeryAortaAortic arch

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I read with great interest the article of Backer et al. [1] regarding resection of Kommerell's diverticulum and left subclavian artery (SCA) transfer for recurrent symptoms after vascular ring division. The authors demonstrated that Kommerell's diverticulum could cause recurrent symptoms after simple ligamentum arteriosum division and suggested that patients with a right aortic arch (RAA), retroesophageal left subclavian artery, and ligamentum arteriosum are at risk of compression of the trachea and esophagus from a residual diverticulum. They recommended resection of the Kommerell's diverticulum and re-implantation of the left subclavian artery into the left carotid artery in children with the RAA. The following comments seem to be of interest to the readership. It is of interest that children with left aortic arch and retroesophageal right subclavian artery are rarely symptomatic. It is this combination that was described by German radiologist Burckhard F. Kommerell [2,3] in 1936. This anomaly is often an accidental finding during investigations for other reasons. It, perhaps, often remains undiagnosed in the general population because of lack of symptoms. Combined with a right ligamentum arteriosum this anomaly may cause compression. In most cases, simple division of the ligamentum is sufficient to relieve symptoms. Upon division of the ligamentum the arch is retracted to the left of the midline relieving the compression. In situs solitus, lower thoracic and abdominal aorta always descends on the left in patients with either left or right aortic arches. One may speculate that in patients with the left aortic arch, the left descending aorta opposes the traction of the right aberrant SCA, thus, preventing the sling-like effect. Patients with the RAA may have severe dysphagia and dyspnea even in the absence of the left ligamentum arteriosum, i.e. without vascular ring as such [4]. This demonstrates the sling-like effect of the left SCA pulling the RAA towards the left side. In RAA, traction of the left SCA is unopposed by the left descending aorta creating a sling-like effect. Thus, the importance of the authors’ recommendation to always divide the aberrant SCA in patients with RAA cannot be overemphasized. In most cases of RAA, the aorta descends for some distance in the right chest before crossing the midline above the diaphragm and completing its inferior course to the left of the spine. However, on rare occasion, the arch may travel behind the esophagus causing severe compression and descend entirely to the left of the spine. In this case, symptoms could persist after the ligamentum division, resection of Kommerell's diverticulum and division of the left SCA [5]. It would be important to recognize the later type of the RAA and be aware that symptoms could persist in these rare patients after ligamentum division, Kommerell's diverticulum resection and left SCA re-implantation. In summary, severe esophageal compression by the RAA in the absence of the left ligamentum arteriosum emphasizes the importance of surgical technique recommended by the authors. This technique, however, may fail in rare patients with an unusual form of the RAA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0110.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicCardiac Structural Anomalies and RepairFrench-language works237,207