Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Surgical Outcomes in Eyes With and Without Silicone Oil Endotamponade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the results of Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation in eyes containing silicone oil to those without silicone oil. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective, comparative study of 94 eyes in 94 patients with mean follow-up of 2 years, comparing surgical outcomes in eyes with silicone oil (N=47) to matched patients without silicone oil (N=47). Success was defined as intraocular pressure (IOP) of >/=6 and </=21 mm Hg and 20% reduction of IOP from preoperative level, with or without glaucoma medicines, and without further glaucoma surgery or loss of light perception. RESULTS: The mean IOP and number of medications at the last follow-up were comparable between the 2 groups (P=0.26 and P=0.12). The cumulative probability of success by life-table analysis was 85% at 6 months, 80% at 1 year, 70% at 2 and 3 years, and 47% at 4 years in silicone oil group, and 100% at 6 months and 1 year, and 76% at 2, 3, and 4 years in the control group (P=0.03). Complications were similar in the 2 groups (P=0.663). The duration of postoperative topical steroid use was significantly longer in the silicone oil group (P=0.0003). Silicone oil was identified as a risk factor for surgical failure by the Cox hazard model (risk ratio=3.43; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The AGV can control the IOP in the majority of eyes after pars plana vitrectomy and silicone oil injection. However, the presence of silicone oil is associated with increased risk of surgical failure in eyes treated with the AGV.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".