Recurrent retinal detachment: does initial treatment matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the treatment course of patients with primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) that re-detach after initial retinal detachment surgery. METHODS: Patients were divided into three groups based on initial surgical treatment: scleral buckle procedure (SBP) (63 eyes), pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) (88 eyes) and combined SBP/PPV (135 eyes). Charts were reviewed for a mean follow-up of 12 months. RESULTS: Average number of secondary procedures to achieve anatomical success was lowest in the SBP group (1.1), compared with the PPV group (1.47) and the SBP/PPV group (1.5) (p<0.05). Patients that re-detached after initial PPV/SBP, PPV or SBP required silicone oil injection in 83%, 60% and 22% of the cases and had final best-corrected visual acuity better than or equal to 20/50 in 21%, 33% and 45% of the cases, respectively. Phakic patients that re-detached after initial treatment with PPV/SBP, PPV and SBP required pars plana lensectomy (PPL) in 42%, 25% and 12.5% of the cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with primary RRD that re-detach after initial treatment with SBP require fewer number of secondary operations and silicone oil injections, show a trend for better visual outcomes and are less likely to develop dense cataract or to require PPL compared to patients that re-detach after initial PPV or PPV/SBP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".