Orbital Decompression in Graves' Orbitopathy: A Combined Endoscopic and External Lateral Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: First, to assess the outcomes of endoscopic and external lateral orbital decompression in patients with dysthyroid orbitopathy. Second, to establish a correlation between the percentage of postoperative diplopia and the technique used. METHODS: A retrospective review of 40 patients (73 eyes) who underwent endoscopic medial orbital decompression and external lateral orbital decompression between 1997 and 2003 at the Hôpital Enfant-Jesus in Quebec City. Some of these patients also had an inferior endoscopic decompression. All patients had exophthalmos. The principal indications for surgery were 42 eyes with compressive optic neuropathy, 13 eyes with other ocular disorders, and 18 eyes with exophthalmos only. All patients with neuropathy underwent endoscopic decompression of the optic canal. RESULTS: All patients had satisfactory improvement of their ocular pathology. Optic neuropathy was completely resolved in 92.85% (39 of 42 eyes). In patients who did not have preoperative diplopia (26), diplopia developed in 70% (14 of 20) of those who underwent medial and inferior decompression compared with 16.6% (1 of 6) of patients who underwent medial decompression only. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic medial orbital decompression is very effective in resolving compressive optic neuropathy. Preservation of the orbital floor, when the degree of exophthalmos allows, reduces the incidence of postoperative diplopia.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".