Comparison of the incidence of opacification of Hydroview hydrogel intraocular lenses with the ophthalmic viscosurgical device used during surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the effect of intraoperative ophthalmic viscosurgical devices (OVDs) on late opacification of the Hydroview hydrogel intraocular lens (IOL) (Bausch & Lomb Surgical). SETTING: Hamilton Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A retrospective study of 949 cases of Hydroview IOL implantations from February 1998 to September 2000 was conducted. Of the 949 implantations, 462 were performed by 1 surgeon (J.H.S.) using Viscoat (sodium chondroitin sulfate 4.0%-sodium hyaluronate 3.0%) and 487 were performed by a second surgeon (W.A.N.) using Biolon (sodium hyaluronate 1.0%). Surgical techniques were identical with the exception of surgeon OVD preference. The number of IOLs opacifying and requiring explantation was determined in each group. RESULTS: Seventy-one Hydroview IOLs had surface calcification deposits that presented a mean of 39 months postoperatively. Twenty-two IOLs opacified sufficiently to warrant a recommendation of IOL explantation; 20 IOLs were explanted, and 2 surgeries were cancelled due to death or disability. In all cases of opacification, Viscoat had been used intraoperatively. This represented a 15.4% incidence of opacification in the Viscoat group, with 31.0% cases severe enough to warrant a recommendation of explantation. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the intraoperative use of Viscoat has a facilitating role in the development of late calcification and opacification of the Hydroview IOL.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".