MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774667611 · doi:10.4103/eus.eus_17_17

Large liver abscess after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fiducial placement

2017· letter· en· W2774667611 on OpenAlexaff
GalabM Hassan, SartoC Paquin, AnandV Sahai

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopic Ultrasound · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmoebic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFiducial markerLiver abscessAbscessEndoscopic ultrasoundRadiologyPercutaneousSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Editor, Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fiducial placement (EUS-FP), performed to facilitate stereotactic body radiation therapy, is feasible and safe.[12] Antibioprophylaxis is not recommended currently by existing guidelines.[3] We report the first case of a large liver abscess and sepsis after EUS-FP. A 67-year-old female with colon cancer and a single, metastatic, 3 cm left lobar liver lesion was referred for EUS-FP. A single fiducial was back-loaded into the 19-gauge needle (Cook, EchoTip®); the tip was then sealed with sterile bone wax [Figures 1 and 2]. After placement of the first fiducial, the needle was then withdrawn from the scope to back-load the next fiducial. Three fiducials were placed in total using this method. No prophylactic antibiotics were administered.Figure 1: Under sterile conditions, the fiducial is back-loaded into the needle tipFigure 2: The needle tip is then sealed with sterile bone waxSix weeks postprocedure, the patient was admitted to the intensive care unit with abdominal pain and septic shock. Computed tomography scan revealed a 10 cm intrahepatic/perigastric abscess in the region where the fiducials had been placed. All resolved with antibiotics and percutaneous drainage. Our institution has performed 43 EUS-FP to date, with only one reported infectious complication (Case #38). We now administer antibioprophylaxis to all patients undergoing EUS-FP. The role of prophylactic antibiotics for EUS-FP was unclear.[3] To the best of our knowledge, only two infectious complications have been reported previously; one cholangitis after EUS-FP of porta hepatis nodes and[4] one cholangitis after EUS-FP for pancreatic head cancer.[3] In both cases, it was uncertain if the infection was related to the procedure or to malignant biliary obstruction. Recent studies with EUS-FP did not systematically administer antibioprophylaxis.[45] In conclusion, postprocedural liver abscess is a possible complication of EUS-FP. Excessive manipulation of the needle, related to the “semi-sterile” back-loading technique, is probably responsible for our reported complication. Therefore, we believe that antibioprophylaxis pre- and post-EUS-FP in these conditions is a reasonable recommendation, and guidelines for prophylaxis should be amended appropriately. EUS-FP infectious risk could likely also be reduced using a needle that allows placement of multiple fiducials, without manual back-loading. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopic UltrasoundSame topicAmoebic Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207