Stenosis at the area of Transposition – An Under-Recognized Complication of Transposed Brachiobasilic Fistulas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With an increased focus on native AV fistula creation in hemodialysis patients, a transposed brachiobasilic fistula (tBBF) is becoming an increasingly utilized option. This study describes the outcomes of tBBFs in a chronic hemodialysis population. In particular, we focus on the incidence and location of stenosis, and review the impact of angioplasty on these lesions. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using all patients with a tBBF created between January 2001 and December 2004. RESULTS: Of the 543 fistulas created during the study period, 93 were tBBFs. The mean age of patients was 65 years, 56% were male and 55% were diabetic. Stenosis occurred in 54% (46/85) of fistulas; the location of stenosis in the majority (74%) was at or near the area of basilic vein transposition and 50% of fistulas with stenosis in this location required three or more angioplasties. Primary (unassisted) patency was 42% at one year in this cohort. Secondary patency was 68% at 1 year and 58% and 53% at 2 and 3 years respectively. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of hemodialysis patients who received a tBBF, we describe a reasonable primary and secondary patency rate and a high rate of stenosis at the point of transposition of the basilic vein. Such stenosis usually requires multiple percutaneous or surgical interventions to ensure or reestablish conduit patency. Further study is required regarding the optimal surgical technique, monitoring, and treatment of stenosis of this fistula type including the utility of repeat angioplasty.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".