Lateral rectus resection strabismus surgery in unilateral duane syndrome with esotropia and limited abduction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resection of the lateral rectus in Duane retraction syndrome (DRS) with esotropia (ET) and limited abduction can be a useful component of surgical planning in specific circumstances, when combined with medial rectus (MR) recession. This article reports the results of a prospective series of patients for whom this approach was used successfully. METHODS: Seven patients were treated, aged 3 to 52 years, with uniltaeral DRS with the following features: 1) ET at least 25 PD; 2) "mild" retraction on adduction; 3) clinically normal adduction; 4) significantly limited abduction; 5) no or mild upshoots/downshoots; and 6) positive forced duction to abduction at surgery. surgery involved MR recession up to 5.0 mm and LR resection of maximum 3.5 mm. Postoperative followup was at least 6 months in all cases. RESULTS: ET angles ranged from 25 to 32 PD; abduction limitations ranged from -3.5 to -4. All patients had face turn postures preoperatively. Postoperatively, the binoclar alignment in primary position was orthotropia and head postures wre eliminated in all patients. Abduction postoperatively ranged from -1 to -2.5; adduction ranged from -0.5 to -1. Two patients had minimal worsening of upshoots and downshoots after surgery. CONCLUSION: In treating DRS with ET and limited abduction, a small LR resection can be a safe and effective component of surgery. It has a low risk of worsening retraction or "crippling" adduction when done in appropriate cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".