Embolization of parastomal and small bowel ectopic varices utilizing a transhepatic antegrade approach: A case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The ideal approach to managing parastomal and small bowel ectopic varices (EVs) is yet to be established. Purpose To evaluate outcomes following percutaneous antegrade transhepatic venous obliteration (PATVO) in patients presenting with bleeding from parastomal or small bowel EVs. Material and Methods A case series of 12 patients presenting with active or recurrent bleeding from parastomal or small bowel EVs who underwent 17 PATVO interventions at our tertiary care institution was performed. Data extraction from electronic medical records included baseline characteristics and procedural details. Endpoints included technical success, early clinical success, and re-bleeding. Results Technical success was 100% ( n = 17), and early clinical success was 82.3% ( n = 14). No patient experienced any intra- or post-operative complications. Rebleed rates after initial PATVO in patients who achieved early clinical success was as follows: 3-month, 0% ( n = 0); 6-month, 20% ( n = 2); 12-month, 20% ( n = 2). Rebleed rates after all PATVO procedures (including patients undergoing repeat procedures) that achieved early clinical success were as follows: 3-month, 0% ( n = 0); 6-month, 14% ( n = 2; 12-month, 14% ( n = 2). All patients with re-bleeding required reintervention with either PATVO, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or both. Conclusion PATVO can be safely performed to treat bleeding from parastomal and small bowel EVs. In patients who present with recurrent bleeding despite PATVO, TIPS with/without embolization of bleeding varices remains a valid option as described by the literature.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".