Primary Nasocutaneous Fistulae in Granulomatosis With Polyangiitis: A Case Series and Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the presentation, investigation, management, and outcomes of primary nasocutaneous fistulae in granulomatosis with polyangiitis and review the literature of this complication. METHODS: Retrospective series of 5 patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis and nasocutaneous fistulae and the medical and surgical management strategies employed. RESULTS: Two cases presented with fistulae as the primary symptom of their systemic disease. Systemic management of granulomatosis with polyangiitis is a primary concern and two cases had inadequate control at presentation such that surgical intervention was deferred. Of the other 3 cases, 2 were closed using a median forehead flap and the other with an orbicularis advancement flap. An endonasal approach was attempted in 1 case but was unsuccessful due to the friable nature of the nasal mucosal tissue. CONCLUSIONS: Nasocutaneous fistulae should alert the clinician to underlying granulomatosis with polyangiitis, which may be a presentation of this condition. Systemic management of disease is often a barrier to surgical management. Myocutaneous flaps may be the most reliable management option to achieve closure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".