Endovenous laser ablation therapy in children: applications and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endovenous laser ablation is well recognized as the first-line treatment for superficial venous reflux with varicose veins in adults. It is not widely reported and is not an established practice in pediatric patients. OBJECTIVE: To illustrate a variety of pediatric venous conditions in which endovenous laser ablation can be utilized and to demonstrate its feasibility and safety in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of endovenous laser ablation procedures performed between January 2007 and July 2014 at two large pediatric institutions. RESULTS: We included 35 patients (17 males) who underwent endovenous laser ablation to 43 veins. Median age at first treatment was 14 years (range: 3-18 years). Median weight was 56 kg (range: 19-97 kg). Underlying diagnoses were common venous malformation (15), Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome (8), superficial venous reflux with varicose veins (5), verrucous hemangioma-related phlebectasia (4), venous varix (2) and arteriovenous fistula (1). The most common aim of treatment was to facilitate sclerotherapy. Thirty-four patients had treatment in the lower limbs and one patient in an upper limb. Ten of the veins treated with endovenous laser ablation had an additional procedure performed to close the vein. Complications attributable to endovenous laser ablation occurred in two patients (6%). One patient experienced post-procedural pain and one patient developed a temporary sensory nerve injury. Median clinical follow-up was 13 months (range: 28 days-5.7 years). The aim of the treatment was achieved in 29 of the 35 (83%) patients. CONCLUSION: Endovenous laser ablation is technically feasible and safe in children. It can be used in the management of a range of pediatric venous diseases with good 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".