MANAGEMENT OF OPTIC DISK PIT–ASSOCIATED MACULAR DETACHMENT WITH TISSEEL FIBRIN SEALANT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Background: Optic disk pit–associated macular detachment is a challenging condition to treat. Many surgical methods have been used to treat this condition with varying degrees of success. Methods: We managed optic disk pit–associated macular detachment in three cases with pars plana vitrectomy, fluid–air exchange, drainage of subretinal fluid through the optic disk pit, application of Tisseel fibrin sealant (Baxter Healthcare Corporation, CA) to the optic disk pit, C3F8 gas injection, and postoperative prone positioning. Results: All three patients maintained flat maculae and had improved vision. Patient 3 had postoperative macular hole formation. This was managed successfully with pars plana vitrectomy, internal limiting membrane peeling, fluid–air exchange, and C3F8 gas injection. Conclusion: Our case series suggest that Tisseel fibrin sealant in conjunction with pars plana vitrectomy can be used successfully for management of optic pit disk–associated macular detachments. Cases of macular detachment associated with optic disk pit were managed successfully with use of Tisseel fibrin sealant (Baxter Healthcare Corporation, CA) during pars plana vitrectomy. Application of fibrin glue as an adjunct may be useful to treat these difficult cases.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".