The use of endo-vascular balloon tamponade technique for the removal of a misplaced nephrostomy tube in the inferior vena cava
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Inadvertent placement of a nephrostomy tube into the inferior vena cava (IVC) is an extremely rare complication with few reported cases in the literature. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a lady with obstructive uropathy in a solitary kidney in whom an attempt by the community radiologist to place a nephrostomy tube was complicated by wrong insertion into the IVC. This report illustrates how a safe non- surgical removal of this tube using an intravenous balloon tamponade technique was successfully applied. DISCUSSION: Intravenous placement of nephrostomy catheters into the inferior vena cava is extremely rare complication. A few case reports have been published in the literature. The majority of these cases were removed in the operating room under general anesthesia. Using Intravenous balloon tamponade technique for removal has not been previously reported. CONCLUSION: Intravenous balloon tamponade technique is effective and is a good minimally invasive alternative to surgical removal of misplaced nephrostomy tube from IVC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".