Factors Associated With Outcome of Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with outcome of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. METHODS: One hundred thirty-four cases of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy in 111 patients performed for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction by a single surgeon between March 12, 2002 and November 10, 2008 were included in a retrospective, noncomparative case series. Variables assessed during the surgery included intranasal view, difficulty of bone removal, size of the lacrimal sac, presence of lacrimal sac stones, orbital fat prolapse and degree of bleeding. Successful outcome was defined as patency to lacrimal irrigation at final follow up. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one of the 134 cases (90%) were patent to irrigation at final follow up (mean 8.8 ± 8.6 months). A small lacrimal sac opening intraoperatively was associated with higher risk of failure (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] of 5.7 [1.6, 20] [p = 0.0072]). Orbital fat prolapse had a trend toward higher risk of failure that approached statistical significance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] of 5.3 [0.87, 32] [p = 0.0698]). A narrow intranasal view, difficult bony opening, lacrimal sac stones, and bleeding were not associated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A small lacrimal sac opening intraoperatively was associated with failure of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".