Management of congenital lacrimal (anlage) fistula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To review management choices and outcomes for congenital lacrimal (anlage duct) fistulae performed by a single ophthalmologist over a 10-year interval. METHODS: All cases of congenital lacrimal fistulae with minimum follow-up of 1 year, seen and managed by the senior author (PJD) from 2000 to 2010, were retrieved from electronic medical records. Recorded data included demographic features, associated abnormalities of the lacrimal outflow apparatus and type of surgical intervention and outcome. RESULTS: 15 cases of lacrimal fistulae were identified. 67% were males, and mean age of presentation was 5 years. All presented with tearing from the eye or fistulous opening. Two patients had Down syndrome (13%). Mean follow-up was 7.3 years. While two cases required excision combined with endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) or intubation, 9 of 11 (82%) operated cases were successfully treated with simple excision alone. Spontaneous resolution of symptoms occurred in 27% following successful treatment of concurrent nasolacrimal duct obstruction with lacrimal sac massage; in two of these cases, the fistulae were probed and found to have sealed spontaneously. The most common site of the fistula was at the inferior medial canthal area and was connected to the lacrimal sac or common canaliculus in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Congenital lacrimal fistulae may be successfully treated with simple excision alone in most cases. Adjunctive DCR or intubation can be reserved for those identified to have lacrimal outflow tract abnormalities.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".