Pegging the Porous Orbital Implant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Hydroxyapatite (HA) orbital implants are commonly used for the anophthalmic socket. With a HA implant, if motility is not satisfactory then a peg system can be surgically placed in attempts to improve motility. The authors report the technique and results of 83 patients who received motility peg placement over an 8-year period by a single surgeon. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all patients with previous enucleation with either primary or secondary insertion of a HA implant who received a motility peg by a single oculoplastic surgeon between January 1999 and February 2007. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients underwent placement of a titanium peg and sleeve during the study period. Complications seen in the follow-up period included discharge, pyogenic granuloma, and others. Infection was experienced in 1 case. Fourteen patients (17%) required further surgical management due to complications. CONCLUSIONS: The largely positive results of this moderately sized case series validates the efficacy of pegging a hydroxyapatite orbital implant with minor risk of serious complications; this may have been due to a combination of factors including an experienced surgeon and adequate follow-up. As a procedure that can be completed in a hospital or minor surgical suite with sedation, it remains a viable option for many patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".