Back

Peripheral Arteriovenous Malformations And Their Response To Treatment Modalities: A Single Surgeon'S Experience At Tertiary Care Hospitals

Usman, R.; Hussain, D. A.; Malik, M. J.; Anwar, M. W.; Ali, K.

2021-09-22 surgery
10.1101/2021.09.15.21262513 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPeripheral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) are congenital defects resulting in abnormal connections between veins and arteries. We investigated a group of patients with peripheral AVMs to determine whether there were any gender differences in disease presentation and the response of AVMs to various modalities of treatment. MethodologyThe patients in this cross-sectional study were divided into two groups based on gender and their demographic data, clinical presentation at the time of diagnosis and response to treatment was assessed. Both surgical and nonsurgical treatment options were used. Nonsurgical options employed in the study included immunotherapy, embolotherapy and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) ResultsOut of 43 patients, 74.4% were females with a male to female ratio of 1:3. The mean age at presentation in males was 27 years and 17 years in females. 60% of the male patients presented with high-flow AVMs while 81% of the female patients presented with low-flow lesions instead. Half of the AVMs in males were on the trunk whereas, in females, 93.9% were on the extremities. UGFS alone was used in 95.3% of patients while 32.5% of patients underwent UGFS followed by surgical excision. One patient was treated with sirolimus. In 4.6% of cases, embolization followed by surgical excision was performed. Recurrence was recorded in 20.9% of cases. ConclusionsThe clinical presentation of AVMs is notably different among the two genders. Sclerotherapy and embolotherapy proved to be effective treatment options. Larger studies, however, are needed to substantiate these claims.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.