Manual Top Hat Wound Configuration for Penetrating Keratoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of manual top hat penetrating keratoplasty (PK) versus traditional PK. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 71 consecutive patients who underwent manual top hat (n = 36) or traditional (n = 35) PK at our institute. Main outcome measures included best-corrected Snellen visual acuity (BCVA), topographic and refractive results, high-order ocular aberrations, endothelial cell counts, and complication rate. RESULTS: No difference in mean BCVA between the 2 groups was noted after 12 months of follow-up. The mean spherical equivalent power was mild myopia, and the mean astigmatism was <4.2 D cylinder in both groups. There was no difference in total high-order aberrations, except spherical aberrations: 0.88 +/- 0.74 microm in the top hat versus 0.49 +/- 0.41 microm in the traditional PK (P = 0.01). Endothelial cell count was significantly higher in top hat PK group (1978 +/- 277 vs. 1449 +/- 516/mm2 in traditional PK; P < 0.0001), and time to all suture removal was shorter (3.9 +/- 1.5 vs. 9.7 +/- 1.1 months in traditional PK; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: BCVA and refractive results are similar after manual top hat and traditional PK. Top hat PK speeds up suture removal and contributes to higher endothelial cell counts in the grafts 1 year after surgery.
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".