Intraoperative air embolism diagnosis and treatment using hyperbaric oxygen therapy after craniotomy: illustrative case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This report describes the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the acute management of an intraoperative air embolism encountered during a neurosurgical procedure. Furthermore, the authors highlight the concomitant diagnosis of tension pneumocephalus requiring evacuation prior to hyperbaric therapy. OBSERVATIONS: A 68-year-old male developed acute ST-segment elevation and hypotension during elective disconnection of a posterior fossa dural arteriovenous fistula. The semi-sitting position had been used to minimize cerebellar retraction, raising the concern for acute air embolism. Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography was utilized to establish the diagnosis of air embolism. The patient was stabilized on vasopressor therapy, and immediate postoperative computed tomography revealed air bubbles in the left atrium along with tension pneumocephalus. He underwent urgent evacuation for the tension pneumocephalus followed by hyperbaric oxygen therapy to manage the hemodynamically significant air embolism. The patient was eventually extubated and went on to fully recover; a delayed angiogram revealed complete cure of the dural arteriovenous fistula. LESSONS: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy should be considered for an intracardiac air embolism resulting in hemodynamic instability. In the postoperative neurosurgical setting, care should be taken to exclude pneumocephalus requiring operative intervention prior to hyperbaric therapy. A multidisciplinary management approach facilitated expeditious diagnosis and management for the patient.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".