Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Artificial graft infection is one of the most serious complications following EVAR. The gold standard includes the excision of the infected endograft, debridement, and reconstruction. However, these methods are not always the best option for every patient. The authors present the case of a 75-year-old man who was diagnosed with a stent-graft infection following EVAR. A course of antibiotics was administered, and percutaneous drainage was effectively performed twice in succession. After 18 months, the patient was admitted again due to the infection re-occurring. Antibiotics were administered, and percutaneous drainage was effectively re-performed. One year has elapsed since the treatment, and the outpatient followup has lasted until now.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2019.12.009 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!