Axillary Vessels and Brachial Plexus Traumas in Abidjan: Lesional Aspects and Surgical Difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction-Objectives: Through the presentation of epidemiological, anatomo-clinical and surgical aspects, we report our experience in the management of traumatic axillary lesions. Materials and Methods: A descriptive retrospective study was based on the medical records of patients who suffered vascular axillary and/or brachial plexus trauma and who underwent surgical repair at the Abidjan Cardiology Institute from January 2008 to June 2022. Epidemiological, anatomo-clinical and surgical data were studied. Results: Thirty-four medical files belonging to 33 men and one woman, aged 32 on average, were collected. The circumstances of occurrence were dominated by the stab wound (n = 22). The combinations of injuries were as follows: associated involvement of the axillary artery and vein (n = 4); isolated involvement of axillary artery (n = 3); isolated involvement of the axillary vein (n = 2); associated involvement of the axillary artery and brachial plexus (n = 17); associated involvement of the axillary artery and vein and brachial plexus (n = 08). Anatomic lesions included acute arterial lesions (n = 29) and arteriovenous fistula (n = 1) and false aneurysms (n = 4). All patients were operated on under general anesthesia; vascular repair included direct suturing (n = 16), arterial and venous bypass using a long saphenous graft (n = 9), prosthetic arterial bypass (n = 5) and prosthetic flattening-graft (n = 4). Brachial plexus surgery consisted of an end-to-end anastomosis of each transected bundle in all cases (n = 25). The medium-term postoperative course was marked by success without functional sequelae in 88.24% of cases (n = 30) and by the persistence of distal paralysis of the thoracic limb after 6 months in 05.88% (n = 2) of all patients, i.e., 8% of patients who presented with brachial plexus injury. Conclusion: The concomitant surgical treatment of these axillary vascular and nerve lesions has given good results. However, if paralysis of the thoracic limb persists after 6 to 12 months, the patient should be referred to a specialist in brachial plexus surgery.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".