You have been questioning images from papers, so here is one. Is this stenois (thinning) of a vein? Is this successful venoplasty of the vein. It looks like the thinning is reduced (but the thinning above the angioplasty is enhanced is it not?). Has it really stopped the thinning? Because one could say that this venogram was taken just before it went back to its original state or was taken at a different angle to make it look thicker.
Seeing is not believing to ProfG and MouseDoctor!
(Anyone recall what Dr. Zamboni said back in 2009 or so when asked why he did not do the animal research before proceeding to treatment research: "I am not a mouse doctor.")
IRs know their own business. I think it is over the top to suggest that IRs are deliberately staging an image to make the post-venoplasty vein look bigger. But the other questions are better. When is a stenosis a stenosis, and what does successful venoplasty look like?
The other thing that cannot be seen in a still image is the flow rate and how quickly the contrast passes. A difference in the darkness of the contrast should be visible but in the chosen image, it is difficult to make out due to poor quality of the image. I would bet though that in the image on the left, the contrast is sitting in the vein, and in the image on the right, it is passing through.
The author of the blog post did not draw attention to the waisting on the balloon in the second image, which was resolved in the third image. That is evidence in itself that there was a stenosis there to cause that waisting. Although if you read closer the middle images are labelled as 'balloon partially inflated' and 'balloon fully inflated,' so perhaps that is not waisting? A partially inflated balloon can have a little indent like that. But the one that is labelled partially inflated is the one without the indent.