MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968481883 · doi:10.1097/ijg.0b013e3181d1d35d

Late Bleb Leak Management With Trabeculectomy Shutdown, Baerveldt Glaucoma Device Implantation, and Titratable Tube Lumen Size

2010· article· en· W1968481883 on OpenAlexaff
Garfield Miller, Diamond Y. Tam, Iqbal Ike K. Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaucoma · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsCredit Valley HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrabeculectomyMedicineBleb (medicine)GlaucomaIntraocular pressureLeakLigatureSurgeryOphthalmologyVicrylLumen (anatomy)Glaucoma surgeryFibrous joint

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To report a case of late subconjunctival bleb leak, and its management to preserve vision and achieve optimal pressure control in a patient with advanced glaucoma, a 3+ Seidel positive bleb leak, and hypotony maculopathy in the better-seeing eye. DESIGN: Case Report. METHODS: Shutdown of the earlier trabeculectomy site with a scleral graft was achieved before insertion of a 250-mm Baerveldt glaucoma device. An absorbable ligature was used around the tube to prevent early postoperative hypotony. Additional pressure control was obtained by using a permanent polypropylene ligature to decrease the effective lumen size after the resorbence of the vicryl ligature. This suture was left in a location that would be accessible to laser suture-lysis, or manual removal if necessary. RESULTS: Intraocular pressure at 1 year postoperatively was 13 mm Hg on no medications with resolution of the macular folds and 3 lines of improvement of Snellen corrected distance visual acuity. The leak was completely resolved. CONCLUSION: Excellent pressure control was achieved in the surgical management of a late onset bleb leak by shutting down the old trabeculectomy, and inserting a new Baerveldt tube shunt with an adjustable lumen size.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaucomaSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207