USING PATIENT POSITIONING TO PROMOTE RESORPTION OF SUBRETINAL FLUID IN RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT BEFORE PNEUMATIC RETINOPEXY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if the volume of subretinal fluid in patients with acute rhegmatogenous retinal detachment may be reduced through patient positioning before pneumatic retinopexy. Methods: This was a prospective, masked nonrandomized cohort study examining the change in subretinal fluid volume in patients with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment before and after a 1-hour period of specific head positioning, as measured using B-scan ultrasonography. A series of B-scans, each 2 mm apart in the sagittal plane, were acquired for each eye both before and after the positioning period with the patient lying in a supine position. Results: Ten patients with acute unilateral rhegmatogenous retinal detachment were enrolled. All patients experienced a reduction in subretinal fluid volume, from a mean prepositioning volume of 0.89 ± 0.63 mL to a mean postpositioning volume of 0.45 ± 0.43 mL. The mean relative reduction in subretinal fluid measured as a percentage of prepositioning subretinal fluid volume was 55.4% ± 20%, ranging from 35.3% to 93.5%. Conclusion: In patients with acute rhegmatogenous retinal detachment that fall within the classic indications for pneumatic retinopexy, significant reduction of subretinal fluid volume may be obtained through a 1-hour period of patient positioning in a retinal break–dependent manner. In patients with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with classic indications for pneumatic retinopexy, subretinal fluid volume may be decreased by positioning patients in a dependent manner for a 1-hour period. This may be useful in facilitating prepneumatic transconjunctival cryopexy and in stabilizing patients with macula-threatening retinal detachments while they await therapy.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".