Nutcracker syndrome (NCS) is a relatively uncommon vascular condition characterized by compression of the left renal vein (LRV), resulting in a variable spectrum of nonspecific symptoms, including hematuria, flank pain, varicocele, and pelvic congestion syndrome. NCS can be classified into anterior and posterior types regarding the origin of LRV compression: anterior NCS occurs when LRV is compressed between the aorta and superior mesenteric artery, whereas posterior NCS involves LRV compression between the aorta and the spine. Despite advancements in diagnostic modalities, including Doppler ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and invasive techniques like phlebography, there is still no globally accepted diagnostic algorithm, leading to inconsistencies in diagnosis. Moreover, due to the lack of standardized treatment guidelines, the optimal management of anterior NCS remains a topic of debate. While conservative management is usually recommended in the pediatric population, invasive treatments—including surgical options like LRV transposition and renal autotransplantation, as well as interventional radiology procedures like stenting, present challenges such as stent migration, restenosis, and long-term material durability. Nevertheless, the emergence of 3D-printed stents offers potential improvements in patient-specific treatment, particularly in the pediatric population, yet their clinical efficacy and safety remain under investigation. This brief communication addresses the current discussions regarding anterior NCS management, emphasizing the need for standardized diagnostic algorithms, a multidisciplinary approach, and continued technological advancements to refine treatment possibilities and strategies. Further research is critical to resolve these controversies and establish a consensus on best practices.

Although pulmonary arteriovenous malformations are relatively rare disorders, they are an important part of the differential diagnosis of common pulmonary problems, such as hypoxemia, dyspnea on exertion and pulmonary nodules. An 11-year-old Croatian boy of Mediterranean origin with a history of asthma since childhood was admitted to our hospital for evaluation of difficult-to-control asthma during the previous six months. A chest X-ray showed a homogeneous soft tissue mass in the lingual area. Computed tomography angiography of the thorax showed two pulmonary arteriovenous malformations, one on each side of the lungs. Diagnosis of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia was made clinically by Curaçao criteria. Genetic analysis revealed a mutation in the endoglin gene. The patient was treated with embolotherapy with good clinical outcome. We present a case of pulmonary arteriovenous malformations masquerading as refractory asthma.

Purpose: Pulmonary arteriovenous malformations (PAVM) are the direct communications between the pulmonary arteries and veins. These malformations can cause serious complications, and most of these patients should be treated. Herein we present our experience in the treatment of 18 cases of PAVM, treated with endovascular embolisation.Material and methods: Eighteen patients with PAVMs underwent endovascular embolisation during a five-year period. Eight were male and 10 were female, with ages ranging from 16 to 65 years. Standard steel coils and vascular plug were used for embolisation.Results: Embolisation was successful in 17 of 18 patients. Coiling was used in 10 patients, vascular plug in five, and both materials in two patients. All symptomatic patients with successful embolisation lost all their symptoms after treatment. Control angiography after embolisation showed a closure of AV shunt without migration of embolic material in all patients. Post-embolisation syndrome developed in four patients and late onset of pleural pain in three patients. There was no connection between pleural reaction and type of PAVM and embolic material.Conclusions: Endovascular PAVM treatment is a minimally invasive, highly successful method with a low rate of only transitory complications.

To determine patients’ knowledge about ionising radiation used in diagnostic imaging and whether they were adequately informed about the procedure they were referred to. A cross-sectional study was conducted at the University Hospital Merkur, Zagreb, Croatia during 2019–20. A questionnaire with 14 questions was given to patients in waiting rooms for imaging examinations. Statistical analysis was conducted using the standard software package. Chi-square with Yates correction was used to determine differences in patients’ answers between those who received the explanation about the procedure and those who did not. The differences depending on the educational level were also evaluated. The survey was completed by 374 participants (200 women, 174 men) with a mean age of 55.45 ± 15.92 y. Of all patients, 8.63% had no formal education or only finished elementary school, 52.83% had finished high school and 38.55% had a college or a higher degree. The referring physicians informed 63.66% of participants about the radiological exam they were being referred to, and 226 thought that the given explanation was sufficient. Most patients knew that some radiological procedures use ionising radiation. Only 47.37% of respondents correctly identified MRI as a non-ionising method, whereas 37.40% of participants recognised chest X-ray as the modality with the lowest radiation dose. Higher-educated patients had better knowledge of radiological procedures and the potential risks. The study demonstrated suboptimal patients’ knowledge about ionising radiation, and additional efforts in their education are needed.

Background and Clinical Significance: Pylephlebitis is a suppurative thrombophlebitis of porto-mesenteric veins. It is a rare complication of intraabdominal infection or inflammation. Case Presentation: A 46-year-old female patient presented to the Emergency Department (ED) with a three-day history of subfebrile body temperature (37.5 °C) and dull pain in the right lower abdominal quadrant propagating to the left lower quadrant, with frequent bowel movements and liquid stool consistency. Inflammatory markers were elevated. Following transabdominal ultrasound, possible diagnoses were inflammatory changes of the appendix or sigmoid colon. She was given oral antibiotics and discharged home with a surgical follow-up the next morning. The next day, due to the worsening of the symptoms, surgery was performed with no additional imaging studies. Intraoperative findings were diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon with perforation and peritoneal inflammation, and primary anastomosis with a diverting ileosotomy was performed. The patient was discharged from the hospital after seven days with completed antibiotic treatment. Twelve days later, the patient presented to the ED with a two-day fever (38 °C), elevated inflammatory markers and imaging findings consistent with pylephlebitis: complete left portal vein thrombosis, partial thrombosis of the segmental branch of the right portal vein and thrombosis of the inferior mesenteric vein. The administration of anticoagulants and antibiotics started and after nine days she was discharged home. Conclusions: Timely treatment is a necessity in patients with diverticulitis to prevent complications. Furthermore, clinicians and radiologists should be familiar with vascular complications of diverticulitis because their detection and the following treatment can prevent more extensive disease.