Abdominal visceral perforation by buried peritoneal dialysis catheters: Cause or coincidence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delayed visceral organ perforations after PD catheter insertions are extremely rare. We report two patients who presented with asymptomatic visceral perforation from their buried PD catheters. Five months after a laparoscopic buried PD catheter insertion in a 92-year-old man PD was initiated; bile and bowel contents were noted in the PD effluent. He subsequently expired (from pneumonia) to autopsy revealed the PD catheter within the small bowel. Despite this perforation, there was no evidence of peritonitis, inflammation, nor any bowel content within the peritoneal cavity. A second case was observed 2.5 months after an uncomplicated laparoscopic buried PD catheter insertion in a 60-year-old woman. PD was attempted; the patient had an immediate urge to void. MRI revealed the presence of the PD catheter within her bladder. She underwent PD catheter revision the next day with repair of bladder perforation and ultimately successfully initiated PD. Since the perforations did not occur at the time of catheter placement, we believe that the catheter eroded into a viscus, perhaps related to the lack of a fluid at the catheter - viscus interface. The diagnosis of delayed visceral organ perforation following buried PD catheter insertion may be delayed because the catheter is not immediately used.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".