Effect of retrobulbar injection of lidocaine on saccadic velocities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether exposing the extraocular muscles (EOMs) to lidocaine via retrobulbar injection for cataract surgery has a demonstrable negative effect on subsequent function of the muscle. SETTING: York Finch Eye Associates, Humber River Regional Hospital, and Toronto Western Hospital Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This study comprised 37 eyes that had phacoemulsification and posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation; 13 eyes had retrobulbar lidocaine with hyaluronidase and 24 eyes, topical anesthesia. The postoperative saccadic velocities were compared with the preoperative velocities using a sensitive recording device. The results were compared within and between the retrobulbar lidocaine and topical anesthesia groups. RESULTS: No detectable decrement in postoperative saccadic velocities was detected in any patient, and no difference was found between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Exposing EOMs to lidocaine for cataract surgery had no detectable negative effect on saccadic velocities 1 week after surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".