Feasibility of sleeveless bimanual phacoemulsification with the Millennium microsurgical system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of sleeveless bimanual phacoemulsification using the Millennium Microsurgical System (Bausch and Lomb Surgical) by measuring wound temperature during phacoemulsification. SETTING: In vitro laboratory. METHODS: The Millennium system was used in 6 eye-bank eyes using pulse mode and 80-milllisecond and 160-millisecond phaco burst mode width intervals. Wound temperatures were measured, and the wounds were observed for thermal injury. RESULTS: In pulse mode and the nonoccluded state at 100% power, the maximum temperature was 43.8 degrees C. In the occluded state at 30% power, the maximum temperature was 51.7 degrees C after 70 seconds of occlusion. In phaco burst mode with a 160-millisecond burst-width interval, the maximum temperature was 41.4 degrees C (nonoccluded at 100% power). At 80% power, the maximum temperature was 53.2 degrees C within 60 seconds of full aspiration occlusion with the footpedal fully depressed. With an 80-millisecond burst-width interval in the nonoccluded and occluded states (100% power, footpedal fully depressed for 3 minutes), there was no significant temperature rise. The maximum temperature was 33.6 degrees C in the nonoccluded state and 41.8 degrees C in the occluded state. In all instances, the corneal wound remained clear. No wound burn or contracture was noted. CONCLUSIONS: The demonstrated temperature rises were under clinically unusual parameters. Phacoemulsification with a sleeveless needle through a small stab incision can be safely performed with the Millennium system using conventional phaco burst mode settings within certain parameters.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".