MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030082261 · doi:10.1097/ico.0b013e3181c377d5

Flap Buttonhole in Thin-Flap Laser In Situ Keratomileusis: Case Series and Review

2010· article· en· W2030082261 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsCegep de Sept Iles
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeratomileusisMedicineLASIKMicrokeratomePhotorefractive keratectomyDioptrePhototherapeutic keratectomyKeratometerSurgeryOphthalmologyCorneaVisual acuity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To analyze the clinical features and the risk factors leading to formation of flap buttonhole during laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and the postablation visual outcome. METHODS: Medical records of all eyes that developed flap buttonhole during LASIK were retrospectively reviewed. Pre-LASIK measurements and intraoperative parameters were analyzed to predict the risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 944 eyes underwent LASIK during the study duration. Four eyes (0.42%) developed partial thickness flap buttonhole. Thin-flap LASIK (flap thickness < or =90 microm) was performed in 230 eyes. The incidence of buttonholes in thin-flap LASIK cases was 1.7% (4 of 230). LASIK procedures were performed at a tertiary eye institute between October 2006 and December 2008. The mean age was 31 +/- 8.7 years. Preablation mean spherical refractive error in the affected left eye was -7.8 +/- 1.2 diopters (D), mean steeper axis keratometry was 44.0 +/- 1.56 D, and the mean pachymetry was 520 +/- 16 microm. Buttonholing in the flap occurred in the second (left) eye of all 4 cases. All cases had undergone thin-flap LASIK with 90-microm blade using the Moria M2 microkeratome. Flap diameter was +2/7.5 and 0/8.0 for 2 eyes each. Twelve weeks after the initial procedure, transepithelial phototherapeutic keratectomy/photorefractive keratectomy was performed in all 4 eyes. Postablation visual outcome was 20/20 and 20/25 in 2 eyes each. One patient had a faint subepithelial scar at the last 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Formation of flap buttonhole is significantly more common in the second eye and with the usage of Moria M2 microkeratome and 90-microm blade. In thin-flap LASIK, the practice of using the same microkeratome blade for the fellow eye, as is commonly followed at many refractive surgery centres, should be abandoned. Intraoperative subtraction pachymetry may be helpful in predicting the risk of buttonhole in the second eye. These precautions are especially mandatory in thin-flap LASIK irrespective of the other associated risk factors.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.249 · 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