Radiofrequency In Situ Fenestration for Aortic Arch Vessels During Thoracic Endovascular Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the first clinical application of a novel technique using radiofrequency puncture to create retrograde in situ fenestrations during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS: Between June 2011 and December 2013, 40 TEVAR procedures were performed in our facility, including 10 cases in which in situ fenestration was planned. Two thoracic stent-graft models were deployed: the Valiant (n=5) and the Zenith TX2 (n=5). A 0.035-inch PowerWire radiofrequency guidewire delivered from a brachial approach was used to fenestrate the grafts covering a left subclavian artery (LSA) in 9 cases and a left common carotid artery in one. The fenestrations were serially dilated to 6 mm, and self-expanding Advanta V12 covered stents were positioned in the target arteries. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 6 of the 10 planned cases. Of the remaining 4 cases, stent-grafts were deployed in zone 3 in 2 cases (one received a chimney to the LSA). Another stent-graft was deployed in zone 2 without endoleak after fenestration was abandoned (the LSA had good filling via the vertebral artery). In the last case, the fenestration was unsuccessful in double-layered (proximal extension overlap) stent-grafts; a carotid-axillary bypass was required. There were no fenestration-related complications, but overall surgical complications included a case of paraparesis that resolved following spinal drainage and a death from a preexisting aortoesophageal fistula. There were no postoperative strokes. All fenestrations remained patent, and there were no endoleaks at a mean 12-month follow-up (range 1-33). CONCLUSION: Radiofrequency puncture is a viable alternative to needle or laser punctures for in situ fenestration during TEVAR. Early clinical results suggest technical feasibility and acceptable early outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".