Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Liyanage et al.1 should be commended for attempting to study incisional leakage and potential anterior chamber stability during cataract surgery, although the latter was not formally studied. Unfortunately, the study has several methodological issues, including a very rudimentary method to measure irrigation and aspiration volume (graduations on irrigation bottle and aspiration bag, respectively). Measuring volume differences using a strain gauge might have been more precise. Our biggest concern is in the second part of the study in which the maintenance of a chopping instrument within the side port and its impact on incision leakage was evaluated. Fluid loss between 2 different surgeons (one who removed the chopper after chopping and one who did not) was compared. Although incision sizes were apparently similar, numerous confounding variables probably made the results less meaningful. Confounders that were not reported or controlled include specific machine settings (bottle height, flow/vacuum settings, power modulation), bed height, surgical styles (handling of chopper, maneuvers), hand positioning, cataract density, phaco times, intraocular lens model and size, and surgeon skill. While we assume neither surgeon used continuous irrigation, one surgeon might have been in foot position 2 between chopping/lens manipulations, while the other surgeon might have preferred foot position 1; this can dramatically alter the measured incision leakage. Furthermore, with such a small number of cases assessed (11 in one group and 16 in the other), a spurious result is highly possible. The scatterplot presented is misleading because data appear to be presented as paired data when, in fact, they are not. Although a percentage score of incision leakage was used to negate variable surgical times, other factors as discussed above could have exerted a confounding effect on the results. Furthermore, it might have been better to measure fluid inflow and outflow during only the phacoemulsification portion of the procedure to more accurately assess differences in side-port instrumentation techniques. Although the authors raised some important considerations in phaco technique, we would encourage a more robust and controlled method of analyzing the impact of side-port instrumentation. A second instrument can provide stability for the eye during topical surgery, and many surgeons find it helpful in carouseling nuclear fragments at the phaco tip. This permits greater efficiency, less turbulence, and reduced case times, as well as improved fluidic and phacoemulsification metrics. To reduce the potential for excessive leakage from side-port incisions, we advocate a smaller side-port incision with a trapezoidal design (1.0 mm external incision and 0.5 mm internal incision) to prevent oar locking but with less leakage and using the incision as fulcrum to reduce tissue trauma.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».