MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Combined Topical and Intracameral Anesthesia in Penetrating Keratoplasty

2004· article· en· W1992223866 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaFentanylMidazolamTetracaineLidocaineSedationSurgeryPatient satisfactionLocal anesthesiaAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) is either retrobulbar or peribulbar anesthesia combined with seventh cranial nerve akinesia or general anesthesia. These methods are known to be associated with rare but potentially serious adverse ocular and systemic events. PURPOSE: To determine the safety and efficacy of combined topical and intracameral anesthesia in addition to intravenous sedation for repeat penetrating keratoplasty (PKP). SETTING: Tertiary-care university hospital. METHODS: In this prospective study, combined topical tetracaine 0.5% and 0.2 cc intracameral 1% lidocaine along with i.v. sedation with midazolam and fentanyl were used for patients undergoing repeat PKP in 15 eyes of 15 selected patients. The indication for surgery was failed corneal graft. Verbal pain scale (VPS, 0-3) was recorded preoperatively, intraoperatively at 3 time-points (after trephination, after placing 8 interrupted sutures, and after placing the running suture), and postoperatively (1 hour postoperatively, overnight pain, and 1 day postoperatively). Patient and surgeon satisfaction were assessed postoperatively using a scale (1-5). After surgery patients were asked for their preferences comparing the current use of topical anesthesia compared with retrobulbar anesthesia used for their initial PKP. RESULTS: The mean intraoperative VPS score was 0.51 +/- 0.32 (range 0-1.33), and the mean postoperative VPS score was 0.47 +/- 0.50 (range 0-1.67). There were no serious intraoperative or postoperative complications. All patients reported high mean satisfaction score of 4.67 +/- 0.49 (range 4-5). The mean satisfaction score reported by the surgeon was 4.47 +/- 0.63 (range 3-5). All patients but 1 (93.3%) preferred combined topical over retrobulbar anesthesia, which they had in their previous surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We found combined topical and intracameral anesthesia to be safe and effective in our selected group of patients undergoing repeat PKP, and it may provide a satisfactory alternative anesthetic modality for patients in whom general, retrobulbar, or peribulbar anesthesia may be contraindicated.

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.

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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
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