Intraocular pressure decrease after phacoemulsification in patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the intraocular pressure (IOP) response to phacoemulsification cataract extraction with posterior chamber intraocular lens (PC IOL) implantation in patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome. SETTING: Eye clinics at the University of Ottawa Eye Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study design assigned patients to 1 of 3 subgroups: pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX) (n = 21), primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) control (n = 23), and cataract control (n = 23). Inclusion criteria consisted of age older than 50 years, open angle by gonioscopy, and a cataract requiring phacoemulsification. The IOP response was determined at intervals up to 18 months. RESULTS: Postoperative IOP changes from baseline in the PEX group were -1.81, -4.52, and -2.31 mm Hg at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. The changes in the POAG control group were -2.22, -2.32, and -1.88 mm Hg, respectively, and in the cataract control group, -2.49, +0.45, and +0.28 mm Hg. Patients in the PEX group had a reduction in IOP from baseline at all postoperative measurements. That reduction was significantly greater than in the POAG and cataract control groups at 6 months (P =.012 and P =.002, respectively) and 12 months (P =.001 and P =.050, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome had a postoperative IOP reduction from baseline at all measurements and a significantly greater reduction than patients in the POAG and cataract control groups at 6 and 12 months. Phacoemulsification cataract surgery with PC IOL implantation may be effective in managing patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome who have elevated IOP and visually significant cataract but no advanced optic nerve damage.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".