Glaucoma Aqueous Drainage Device Erosion Repair With Buccal Mucous Membrane Grafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Glaucoma aqueous drainage devices are important and effective in the management of recalcitrant glaucoma. One complication of this procedure is erosion and exposure of the tube or plate. Strategies to re-cover glaucoma aqueous drainage devices in such cases have met with variable success. The majority of these interventions use conjunctiva for superficial coverage. However, conjunctiva can be in limited supply, and subject to reerosion. METHODS: In this report, we discuss the use of oral buccal mucous membrane in combination with a lamellar corneal patch graft for repair of 3 exposed tubes, 2 plates, and a pars plana clip. Mean time to exposure was 4.8 years. Five eyes from 4 patients are presented and the surgical technique is described. RESULTS: Buccal membrane repairs were considered a surgical success in 5 out of 6 cases (83%) with mean follow-up of 1.5 years. CONCLUSIONS: We advocate the use of buccal membrane in the repair of glaucoma aqueous drainage device tube/plate erosions in patients for whom local conjunctiva is of variable quality or limited supply. Advantages of this procedure and tissue option are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".