Posterior condylar canal dural arteriovenous fistula: anatomical, symptomatological, and therapeutic considerations in comparison with hypoglossal canal dural arteriovenous fistula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Posterior condylar canal dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVFs) are extremely rare. METHODS: We report a case series and literature review of posterior condylar canal dAVFs and discuss similarities and differences between posterior condylar and hypoglossal canal dAVFs with respect to the related vascular anatomy, angioarchitecture of the fistula, presentation, and treatment. RESULTS: Four cases of posterior condylar canal dAVF were identified at our institutions and six cases were identified in the literature. Posterior condylar canal dAVFs were predominantly frequent in relatively young women. All patients presented with pulsatile tinnitus. There was no history of hemorrhage as there was no cortical venous reflux. This is different from hypoglossal canal dAVFs which can present with myelopathy or hemorrhage from cortical venous reflux. Transvenous embolization was safe and eliminated the symptoms. Palliative transarterial embolization can be an option to mitigate the symptoms, although there is a potential risk of cranial nerve palsy or lateral medullary stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior condylar canal dAVFs are generally benign lesions. However, intolerable tinnitus may require intervention. Transvenous embolization is effective and safe.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".