The Wies procedure for management of trichiasis or cicatricial entropion of either upper or lower eyelids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To report the efficacy of the Wies procedure (transverse blepharotomy and marginal rotation) in the management of trichiasis or cicatricial entropion of the upper or lower eyelid. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of all cases of Wies eyelid rotations supervised or performed by one surgeon for cicatricial entropion or trichiasis of the upper or lower eyelids over a 16-year period to assess the indications, success rate and complications of the procedure. Where follow-up was less than 6 months, telephone interviews were conducted to assess patient satisfaction with the surgery. Patients not meeting these criteria were excluded from the final analysis. Success was defined as no recurrence of the entropion or trichiasis and/or patient satisfaction at least 6 months postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed using a chi(2) test. RESULTS: 126 eyelids (77 upper lids, 49 lower lids) were identified in 89 patients (53 single eyelid, 33 multiple eyelids) who underwent a Wies procedure with a minimum follow-up period of 6 months. The mean follow-up period was 67 months (range 6-188 months). The overall success rate was 85%. 13 eyelids (10%) developed complications. 18 eyelids (14%) developed recurrences that required a second procedure. 10 of these second procedures were repeat Wies procedures, one of which was followed by electrolysis. All of these second Wies procedures were successful. CONCLUSIONS: The Wies procedure (transverse blepharotomy and marginal rotation) is reasonably successful in managing trichiasis and cicatricial entropion of either upper or lower eyelids.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".