Feasibility of percutaneous catheterization and embolization of the thoracic duct in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop and determine the feasibility of a novel minimally invasive technique for percutaneous catheterization and embolization of the thoracic duct (PCETD) in dogs and to determine thoricic duct TD pressure at rest and during short-term balloon occlusion of the cranial vena cava (CrVC). ANIMALS: Fifteen 7- to 11-month-old healthy mixed-breed dogs. PROCEDURES: Efferent intestinal lymphangiography was performed, and the cisterna chyli was punctured with a trochar needle percutaneously under fluoroscopic guidance. When access was successful, a guide wire was directed into the TD through the needle and a vascular access sheath was advanced over the guide wire. Thoracic duct pressure was measured at rest and during acute balloon occlusion of the CrVC. The TD was then embolized cranial to the diaphragm with a combination of microcoils and cyanoacrylate or ethylene vinyl alcohol. RESULTS: Successful puncture of the cisterna chyli with advancement of a wire into the TD was possible in 9 of 15 dogs, but successful catheterization was possible in only 5 of 9 dogs. Acute balloon occlusion of the CrVC led to a substantial TD pressure increase in 4 of 4 dogs, and embolization of the TD was successful in 4 of 4 dogs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PCETD can successfully be performed in healthy dogs; however, this minimally invasive technique cannot currently be recommended for routine treatment of chylothorax, in part because of the technically demanding nature of the procedure. An increase in jugular venous pressure led to an increase in TD pressure, potentially predisposing some dogs to developing chylothorax.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".