Orbital Reconstruction After Eyelid- and Conjunctiva-Sparing Orbital Exenteration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the technique and results of eyelid- and conjunctiva-sparing orbital exenteration with temporalis transfer and dermis-fat graft. METHODS: Five patients who underwent this procedure were studied, based on retrospective chart review. Schematic drawings were produced to illustrate the surgical technique. RESULTS: The study included three female and two male patients with an age range of 7 to 76 years. Two patients required surgery for invasive optic nerve sheath meningioma, one for hemangiopericytoma, and the fourth for mesenchymal chondrosarcoma. The last patient had eyelid-sparing exenteration performed more than 20 years earlier for retinoblastoma and underwent a similar reconstruction. One case was complicated by infection and graft atrophy. The remaining four cases retained orbital volume and eyelid structures with a reasonable cosmetic outcome. Average follow-up period was 21 months, during which one patient had development of intracranial meningioma at the proximal end of the optic canal. CONCLUSIONS: Eyelid- and conjunctiva-sparing orbital exenteration with temporalis transfer and dermis-fat graft is a useful technique that minimizes the usual deformity and achieves good results. Case selection is emphasized, as this technique is mainly reserved for histopathologically benign orbital lesions that exhibit local aggressive behavior and for malignant lesions only if there is no eyelid, lacrimal gland, or orbital fissure involvement nor significant conjunctival or deep extension of an intraocular tumor.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".