Large liver abscess after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fiducial placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 After placement of the first fiducial, the needle was then withdrawn from the scope to back-load the next fiducial.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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".