{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01780185758513932, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013157894736842105, 'mean_word_length': 5.49748743718593, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Chronic critical limb ischemia: what is the benefit of radiological intervention? Indications and results.

Indications of interventional radiological procedures in patients with chronic critical limb ischemia are not clearly defined. PTA of limb arteries is used only in 3 of 4% of patients, although 20 to 40% might be candidates for a proximal intervention in the iliac arteries. Following PTA of intrapopliteal arteries, limb salvage varies from 56 to 82% and arterial patency rate from 34 to 100% after 1 to 2 years follow-up in non controlled case series studies. Arterial local thrombolysis shows better results than surgery in subgroups of patients in a few studies. Pulse spray technique does not show better clinical results than conventional infusion of the plasminogen activator. Overall, radiological interventions give similar results compared with surgery, concerning limb salvage rate, length of hospital stay, morbidity and mortality, but significantly more patients are discharged home versus a nursing institution after radiological treatment than after surgery. Radiological techniques seem to be cost effective compared to surgery. Amputation should be carried out only after all revascularization possibilities have been ruled out at a multidisciplinary vascular center.