Experience with 120 Synthetic Hydroxyapatite Implants (FCI3)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the problems and/or complications associated with the use of a synthetic hydroxyapatite implant (FCI, Cedex, France). METHODS: The authors analyzed all of the problems and/or complications associated with the use of a third-generation synthetic hydroxyapatite implant (FCI3) in 120 patients by one surgeon over 4 years. The following data were recorded: age, type of surgery performed, size of implant used, peg system used, follow-up duration, time of pegging, problems and/or complications encountered, and treatment. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were lost to follow-up after 3 months, leaving 107 patients who were followed up from 4 to 48 months (average, 29 months). Discharge occurred in 21 (19.6%) patients, implant exposure in 3 (2.8%), socket discomfort in 2 (1.9%), trochleitis in 2 (1.9%), conjunctival thinning in 1 (0.93%), and pyogenic granuloma in 1 (0.93%). Peg problems occurred in 24 (35.2%) of 68 patients. Problems encountered with the peg were discharge in 10 (14.7%) patients, pyogenic granuloma in 9 (13.2%), conjunctiva overgrowing the peg in 4 (5.8%), hydroxyapatite exposure around the sleeve in 3 (4.4%), loose sleeve in 3 (4.4%), peg drilled on an angle in 1 (1.5%), implant infection in 1 (1.5%), and peg falling out in 1 (1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The FCI3 synthetic hydroxyapatite is a less costly alternative form of hydroxyapatite currently in use in many parts of the world. Problems and complications encountered with its use are similar to those seen with the Bio-Eye Integrated Orbital Implants, Inc., San Diego, CA, U.S.A. The incidence of exposure associated with the synthetic hydroxyapatite implant is lower than several other reports on the Bio-Eye. The synthetic hydroxyapatite implant is slightly softer than the Bio-Eye and fractured under extreme pressure in one case.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".