FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH OUTCOMES OF PNEUMATIC RETINOPEXY FOR RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Background: To determine the factors associated with anatomical and visual outcomes, and complications when using pneumatic retinopexy in the management of rhegmatogenous retinal detachments. Methods: On a whole, 406 patients having undergone 422 primary pneumatic retinopexies for the management of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment at a tertiary care hospital, between January 2004 and December 2009, with a minimum follow-up of 3 months were included in this case series. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate associations of demographic and clinical factors with anatomical and visual outcomes. Results: The single operation success rate was 60.7%, and final anatomical success was 99.5%. Male gender and the presence of complications were associated with single operation failure, whereas age over 65 years, poor preoperative visual acuity, the presence of complications were associated with poorer visual outcomes. Better preoperative visual acuity and absence of complications were associated with obtaining both a good visual outcome and anatomical success after a single intervention. The most common complications included new or missed tears (16.3%), delayed subretinal fluid reabsorption (12.1%), and epiretinal membrane (10.2%). Conclusion: Several factors are associated with pneumatic retinopexy outcomes for rhegmatogenous retinal detachments. These factors should be taken into consideration when identifying patients who would benefit from pneumatic retinopexy and those who are at risk of requiring additional interventions. In this study, the single operation success rate of pneumatic retinopexy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachments was found to be 60.7%, and final anatomical success rate was 99.5%. Male gender, complications, older than 65 years, and preoperative visual acuity were some of the factors associated with worse outcomes. The most common complications were new/missed tears, delayed subretinal fluid reabsorption, and epiretinal membrane.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".