Percutaneous Direct Puncture and Embolization of Visceral Pseudo Aneurysm? New Dimension in Treatment—10 Years’ Experience at Tertiary Care Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the clinical success, safety, effectiveness, and methods for direct percutaneous embolization as an alternative treatment strategy for visceral pseudo aneurysms retrospectively. Materials and Methods: In a retrospective study, we reviewed case records of 18 patients with an age range of 7 to 72 years who had undergone direct puncture and percutaneous embolization. Among all cases, failed transcatheter embolization was performed in 14 cases, 2 cases because of financial issues and in the remaining 2 cases, interventional radiologist preferred this technique to avoid transcatheter approach. Results: Technical and clinical success were achieved in all cases. All patients were followed for 6 months after the procedure. Among 18, location of pseudoaneurysm were splenic artery ( n = 13), left gastric artery (LGA) ( n = 1), gastro-duodenal artery (GDA) ( n = 1), hepatic artery ( n = 1), and inferior epigastric artery ( n = 2). The choice for treatment by direct puncture was because of the technical difficulty due to anatomical and tortuous feeder ( N = 5); the feeding artery could not be identified ( N = 4); or main artery is previously embolized by endovascular approach and now recurrence/residual pseudo aneurysm ( N = 4), severe vasospasm ( N = 1) or operator preferred to avoid endovascular approach ( N = 2), and financial issue ( N = 2). Conclusion: Direct percutaneous embolization of aneurysm might be considered as an alternative initial treatment option in failed transcatheter approach, where transcatheter approach is to be avoided, where patients with financial issues have favorable anatomy, and in critically ill or rapidly deteriorating patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".