Buccal Mucous Membrane for the Reconstruction of Complicated Leaking Trabeculectomy Blebs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Late onset trabeculectomy bleb leaks often require surgical repair to avoid hypotony and/or infection. Repair using local conjunctiva is typically performed. However, in cases in which local conjunctiva is limited and/or has failed, buccal mucous membrane can be used as a conjunctival substitute. METHODS: Four cases of buccal mucous membrane repair for leaking trabeculectomy blebs are reported. Surgical technique is described. RESULTS: In each case of bleb leak, multiple nonincisional techniques failed to control the leak. In 3 of 4 cases, earlier reconstruction attempts with conjunctival advancement and/or free flaps failed. Each was ultimately repaired with buccal membrane autograft. One case required additional minimally invasive procedures to control postoperative leaking. One case required a second adjacent buccal graft for leaking residual conjunctival bleb. Each graft was functioning well at most recent follow-up ranging from 1 to 17 months. DISCUSSION: Buccal membrane is an abundant and effective conjunctival substitute for the repair of recalcitrant leaking trabeculectomy blebs. It may be useful in cases in which earlier conjunctival-based repairs have failed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".