A Comparison of Scleral Tunnel and Pericardial Graft Implantation Techniques in Patients undergoing Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Implantation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to compare the two methods autologous scleral flap (scleral tunnel) and pericardial patch graft of tube covered in Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) in refractory glaucoma with respect to the tube exposure, infection, level of Intraocular Pressure (IOP), and any other complications due to applications of each technique. A retrospective chart review of 113 eyes in 102 patients with refractory glaucoma who underwent ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation (39 eyes in scleral tunnel and scleral flap group “first group” and 74 eyes in pericardium graft group” second group”) was performed. The procedures in these eyes were performed between January 2007 and October 2015 in a tertiary eye care hospital in KSA. The mean age was 56 ± 19 (8 months- 83 years) in the Scleral tunnel group and 50 ± 27 (1- 78 years) in the Pericardium group (p = 0.023). Fifty-six males and 57 females were included in the study. Medians of the follow-up were 48 ± 25.5 months (3 – 89) for the Scleral tunnel group and 29 ± 21.4 months (2 – 92) for the Pericardium group, and it is statistically significant (P < 0.001). According to the findings, preoperative diagnosis in the two groups included neovascular glaucoma (NVG) found in 21 eyes (53.8%) in the Scleral tunnel group versus 18 eyes (24.3%) in the Pericardium group (p = 0.009). Exposure of the valve was found in 15 eyes (20.27%) in Pericardium graft group versus 2 eyes (5.12%) only in scleral tunnel group (p = 0.002). These exposed valves lead to endophthalmitis in 5 cases in the second group and no single case in scleral tunnel group was detected (P < 0.001). The postoperative IOP values were statistically insignificant in all different time periods. Scleral tunnel method has less exposure rate than the pericardium graft. The purpose of this study was to compare the two methods autologous scleral flap (scleral tunnel) and pericardial patch graft of tube covered in Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) in refractory glaucoma with respect to the tube exposure, infection, level of Intraocular Pressure (IOP), and any other complications due to applications of each technique. A retrospective chart review of 113 eyes in 102 patients with refractory glaucoma who underwent ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation (39 eyes in scleral tunnel and scleral flap group “first group” and 74 eyes in pericardium graft group” second group”) was performed. The procedures in these eyes were performed between January 2007 and October 2015 in a tertiary eye care hospital in KSA. The mean age was 56 ± 19 (8 months- 83 years) in the Scleral tunnel group and 50 ± 27 (1- 78 years) in the Pericardium group (p = 0.023). Fifty-six males and 57 females were included in the study. Medians of the follow-up were 48 ± 25.5 months (3 – 89) for the Scleral tunnel group and 29 ± 21.4 months (2 – 92) for the Pericardium group, and it is statistically significant (P < 0.001). According to the findings, preoperative diagnosis in the two groups included neovascular glaucoma (NVG) found in 21 eyes (53.8%) in the Scleral tunnel group versus 18 eyes (24.3%) in the Pericardium group (p = 0.009). Exposure of the valve was found in 15 eyes (20.27%) in Pericardium graft group versus 2 eyes (5.12%) only in scleral tunnel group (p = 0.002). These exposed valves lead to endophthalmitis in 5 cases in the second group and no single case in scleral tunnel group was detected (P < 0.001). The postoperative IOP values were statistically insignificant in all different time periods. Scleral tunnel method has less exposure rate than the pericardium graft.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».