Prophylactic nepafenac and ketorolac versus placebo in preventing postoperative macular edema after uneventful phacoemulsification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic ketorolac 0.5% versus nepafenac 0.1% versus placebo on macular volume 1 month after uneventful phacoemulsification and evaluate the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) of topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the context of cataract surgery. SETTING: Hotel Dieu Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. DESIGN: Prospective placebo-controlled parallel-assignment double-masked randomized clinical trial. METHODS: In this study, patients 18 years or older scheduled for routine phacoemulsification were randomized to a placebo, ketorolac 0.5%, or nepafenac 0.1% and dosed 4 times a day starting 1 day before surgery and continuing for 4 weeks. Spectral-domain macular cube ocular coherence tomography scans measuring central subfield thickness, macular cube volume, and average macular cube thickness were performed at baseline and 1 month postoperatively. The HRQOL metrics were determined with the Comparison of Ophthalmic Medications for Tolerability (COMTOL) questionnaire. RESULTS: Each study group comprised 54 patients. One month postoperatively, although a trend toward significance occurred for nepafenac and ketorolac, analysis of the means of differences showed no statistically significant differences between the 3 study groups (P=.2901). The COMTOL analysis found no difference in tolerability, compliance, side-effect frequency and bother, and effects on HRQOL between ketorolac and nepafenac compared with the placebo. CONCLUSIONS: One month after uneventful phacoemulsification, there was no difference in macular volume between the placebo, ketorolac, and nepafenac. Ketorolac and nepafenac were well tolerated with minimal side-effect profiles. Thus, for patients without risk factors having routine surgery, prophylactic topical NSAIDs are not recommended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".