MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029667416 · doi:10.1097/iae.0000000000000576

LONG-TERM OUTCOMES FOR OPTIC DISK PIT MACULOPATHY AFTER VITRECTOMY

2015· article· en· W2029667416 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jaspreet Rayat, Christopher J. Rudnisky, Chris Waite, Paul Huang, Tom Sheidow, Amin Kherani, Matthew Tennant

Bibliographic record

VenueRetina · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Alexandra Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitrectomyTamponadePars planaMedicineOphthalmologyMaculopathyVisual acuityRetinal detachmentMacular holeRetinalRetinoschisisEpiretinal membraneOptic diskOptic discSurgeryRetinopathy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of pars plana vitrectomy for congenital optic disk pit maculopathy with various adjuvant techniques, including gas tamponade, internal limiting membrane peel, and temporal optic disk endolaser in a multicenter study with long-term follow-up. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify eyes that underwent surgical repair for congenital optic disk pits and serous macular detachment with or without macular retinoschisis from four retinal centers across Canada from 2003 to 2013. Data collected included surgeries performed, preoperative and postoperative vision, central retinal thickness, and presence or absence of subretinal fluid. Optical coherence tomography was used to define anatomical success (i.e., foveal reattachment). Results: Thirty-two eyes of 32 patients with optic disk pits and serous macular detachments were identified that had undergone surgical repair. All eyes underwent pars plana vitrectomy and induction of posterior vitreous detachment if one was not present. Additional procedures performed on occasion included internal limiting membrane peel (n = 8), temporal optic disk pits endolaser (n = 7), and gas tamponade (air, C3F8 or SF6; n = 31). After vitrectomy surgery, foveal attachment was achieved in 26 of 32 eyes (81.3%). The average number of surgeries required was 1.4 ± 0.6, with a maximum of 3 vitrectomies (n = 2). Mean change in best-corrected visual acuity was −0.47 ± 0.54 logMAR units, which corresponds to approximately 5 lines of visual improvement (P < 0.001). Median time to reattachment was 416 days. Preoperative vision, preoperative symptom days, and age were not associated with postoperative reattachment. Similarly, internal limiting membrane peel and temporal endolaser were not associated with postoperative reattachment, nor was there a difference between air and SF6 and C3F8 gas tamponade. Elevated preoperative central retinal thickness was associated with a lower chance of postoperative reattachment (P = 0.007) and was also the best prognostic indicator of success (P = 0.039). Conclusion: Vitrectomy for macular detachment due to optic disk pit has good long-term success and results in an improvement in visual acuity. However, adjuvant techniques such as internal limiting membrane peel and temporal endolaser may not improve outcomes, nor does there seem to be a difference between short- and long-acting gases. Patients should be made aware that it can take more than a year and multiple surgeries to achieve foveal reattachment and that increased baseline central retinal thickness is a poor prognostic sign. A retrospective interventional case series of 32 eyes with congenital optic disk pits underwent vitrectomy with various adjuvant techniques including internal limiting membrane peel and gas tamponade. Anatomical closure was achieved in 81.3% of eyes with significant improvement in visual acuity. Elevated preoperative central macular thickness was associated with failure of reattachment. Internal limiting membrane peel and papillomacular endolaser did not play a role in success, and no difference was found between short- and long-acting gas tamponade.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRetinaSame topicRetinal and Macular SurgeryFrench-language works237,207