Covered Carotid Stents as an Adjunct in the Surgical Treatment of Carotid Body Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: Carotid body tumors are a technically challenging surgical problem. One of the primary goals of surgery and often one of the most difficult aspects of management involves preservation of the ipsilateral internal carotid artery (ICA). We report a small case series with challenging aspects to ICA preservation that were successfully treated with covered stenting and review the literature to date on this topic. CLINICAL PRESENTATION: Two patients with carotid body tumors were selected for covered ICA stenting, the first because of bilateral disease and the second because of failure of test occlusion. The patients were initially loaded with antiplatelet agents, and the stents were deployed transfemorally. The patients were kept on dual therapy (acetylsalicylic acid and Plavix) for 6 weeks, followed by acetylsalicylic acid alone, which was discontinued 1 week before surgery. The patients were admitted 3 days before surgery, and intravenous heparin was started and then stopped 6 hours preoperatively. Both tumors were completely resected with minimal blood loss, and the ipsilateral ICA was successfully preserved in both cases. CONCLUSION: The covered ICA stent offers a significant adjunct for preserving the ICA in carotid body tumor resection.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".