The Efficacy of 5-Fluorouracil Bleb Needling Performed 1 Year or More Posttrabeculectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of a subconjunctival needling revision using 5-fluorouracil (5FU) when administered to patients who have nonfiltering, flat, or encapsulated blebs over 1 year after the original surgery. METHODS: The charts of 37 glaucoma patients, who had undergone both a trabeculectomy filtering procedure and a subconjunctival 5FU needling revision, with a minimum interval of 1 year between these procedures and with no intervening surgical procedures, were retrospectively reviewed. The needling was a clinic procedure using a 30-gauge needle and 0.1 mL of 50 mg/mL 5FU. RESULTS: Intraocular pressure (IOP) decreased by an average of 10.5 mm Hg (44.8%) immediately after the needling procedure. Eleven eyes (29.7%) achieved absolute success, defined as IOP control with no further needling revision, surgical intervention, or antiglaucoma medication in the 2-year follow-up period. Thirteen eyes (35.1%) achieved a qualified success, defined as IOP control with resumed medication use, undergoing a laser procedure, or a repeat needling within the follow-up period. Thirteen eyes (35.1%) failed the procedure by requiring a repeat surgical intervention. The mean IOP was 16.3+/-4.6 mm Hg in the success group, 15.5+/-6.5 mm Hg in the qualified success group, and 27.7+/-8.9 mm Hg in the failure group at the end of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Late 5FU needling is an effective method to control IOP and avoid further surgery in a high proportion of patients with medically uncontrolled nonfiltering blebs.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".