MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006485473 · doi:10.1016/s0886-3350(03)00113-5

Ocular Penetration/Perforation After Peribulbar Anesthesia

2003· letter· en· W2006485473 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert C. Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOrbit (dynamics)EyelidPerforationPalpebral fissureSagittal planeSurgeryAnatomyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Having learned from the occurrence of ocular perforation (entrance and exit) in 2 patients and ocular penetration (entrance only) in 1 patient in a series of more than 33 000 blocks, mainly for cataract surgery, over the past 18 years, I would like to make the following recommendaton for the inferior injection technique, whether for retrobulbar or peribulbar placement. Rather than the traditional two-thirds/one-third entry location on the inferior orbit rim (as used in 4 patients in 2 recent articles1,2), I now routinely inject transcutaneously much farther to the temporal side, at the junction of the lateral and inferior orbit rims and close to the bony orbit rim as palpated through the skin before injection (Figure 1). 3 The rationale for going transcutaneously is to get around the tense orbicularis tone often present in the inferior eyelid or the problems created when there is a narrow palpebral fissure and a wide lateral canthal fold.Figure 1.: (Hamilton) The outline of the globe is superimposed on a template of the orbit rim. The traditional inferior-block injection site is just inside the orbit rim at “T.” The modified injection site is inferotemporal, just inside the orbit rim at “M” (reprinted with permission of Gimbel Educational Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada).After the exact point of injection on the skin surface is chosen, the needle is advanced in a sagittal plane with 10-degree upward inflection from the transverse plane. The needle at first invaginates the skin, while being directed safely between the globe and lateral orbit wall; it soon penetrates the skin and can then be advanced to the depth of the globe equator before it is redirected according to whether one is doing an intracone or pericone block. This modified entry position provides safer access to the orbit as there is more physical space than in the traditional entry point (Figure 1). In addition, the modified technique avoids possible needle damage to the inferior rectus and inferior oblique muscles and to the motor nerve supply to the inferior oblique.4 Atypical pain during injection was a prominent symptom in all 4 patients reported.1,2 Pain experienced by patients in this situation should be taken seriously and as the sentinel to desist from further injection until the cause is investigated. Unduly deep sedation, when provided at the time of orbital local anesthetic injection, must be avoided because it can counter patients acting as their own monitor and being conscious enough to report pain. Robert C. Hamilton MB Calgary, Alberta, Canada

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgerySame topicIntraocular Surgery and LensesFrench-language works237,207