Selective disconnection of cortical venous reflux as treatment for cranial dural arteriovenous fistulas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: A single-institution series of 119 consecutive patients with a dural arteriovenous fistula (DAVF) and cortical venous reflux was reviewed to assess the overall clinical outcome of multidisciplinary management after long-term follow up. The selective disconnection of the cortical venous reflux compared with the obliteration of the entire DAVF was evaluated. METHODS: Dural arteriovenous fistulas in patients in this series were diagnosed between 1984 and 2001, and treatment was instituted in 102 of them. The outcome of adequately treated patients was compared with that of a control group consisting of those with persistent cortical venous reflux and with data found in the literature. In cases of combined dural sinus drainage and cortical venous reflux, a novel treatment concept of selective disconnection of the cortical venous reflux that left the sinus drainage intact, and thus converted the aggressive DAVF into a benign lesion, was evaluated. Endovascular treatment, which was instituted initially in 78 patients, resulted in an obliteration or selective disconnection in 26 (25.5%) of 102 cases. In 70 cases (68.6%) the DAVFs were surgically obliterated or disconnected. In six cases (5.9%), patients were left with persistent cortical venous reflux. No lasting complications were noted in this series. Follow-up angiography confirmed a durable result in 94 (97.9%) of 96 adequately treated cases, at a mean follow up of 27.6 months (range 1.4-138.3 months). Selective disconnection was performed in 23 DAVFs with combined sinus drainage and cortical venous reflux. These patients' long-term outcomes were equal to those with obliterated DAVFs, and the complication rate was lower. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the ominous course of DAVFs with patent cortical venous reflux, multidisciplinary treatment of these lesions is highly effective and the complication rate is low. Selective disconnection provides a valid treatment option of DAVFs with combined dural sinus drainage and cortical venous reflux, as has been shown in cranial DAVFs with direct cortical venous reflux.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".