P.085 Perioperative endovascular procedure utilization in transsphenoidal surgery patients at two tertiary-care academic centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Utilization of endovascular procedures in the perioperative management of patients undergoing transsphenoidal surgery is uncommon but plays a critical role in preventing and treating potentially life-threatening vascular complications. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all patients over a 10-year period who underwent transsphenoidal surgery at two tertiary-care institutions and identified all pre-operative and post-operative endovascular procedures performed. Results: 18 perioperative endovascular procedures were performed including 9 pre- and 9 post-operative. Pre-operative procedures included balloon-test occlusion (n=4), aneurysm coiling (n=4), and parent artery occlusion (n=1). One aneurysm coiling was complicated by coil migration requiring coil retrieval with a snare device and one balloon-test occlusion was complicated by pituitary apoplexy. Pituitary apoplexy following balloon-test occlusion has not been reported and the potential pathophysiology is reviewed. Post-operative procedures included embolization for epistaxis (n=2) and embolization with or without parent artery sacrifice for carotid and anterior cerebral artery vascular injury (n=7). Arterial vascular injury was managed with coil embolization and/or with detachable balloons. Review of anatomical features predisposing to vascular injury are discussed. Conclusions: Patients undergoing transsphenoidal surgery should be managed with a multidisciplinary team ensuring that endovascular treatment options are made available during the perioperative period.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".