Fibrin Glue for Opposing Wound Edges in “Top Hat” Penetrating Keratoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the advantages of fibrin glue for opposing wound edges in Top Hat penetrating keratoplasty (PKP). METHODS: Twenty human corneoscleral rims were mounted on an artificial anterior chamber. Eight corneas underwent traditional PKP, 6 underwent Top Hat PKP, and 6 underwent Top Hat PKP by using fibrin glue for opposing wound edges. Mechanical stability was evaluated after placement of 8 and 16 interrupted sutures. Wound bursting pressure and induced astigmatism were evaluated. RESULTS: In the traditional PKP group, wound bursting pressure was 25.2 and 59.1 mm Hg after placement of 8 and 16 sutures, respectively. In the Top Hat PKP, leakage occurred at 57.6 and 103.8 mm Hg after placement of the 8 and 16 sutures, respectively. In the Top Hat PKP + fibrin glue group, wound leakage occurred at 144.6 mm Hg after placement of the 8 sutures and at >158 mm Hg after placement of 16 sutures. The Top Hat PKP + fibrin glue group induced astigmatism of 2.5 D, whereas the traditional PKP group and the Top Hat PKP group showed an induced astigmatism of 3.1 D each. CONCLUSIONS: The use of fibrin glue in Top Hat PKP was found to be more mechanically stable than traditional sutures.
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) | 0.001 | 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".