Endoscopic Goniotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the technique and early outcomes of endoscopic goniotomy (EG) in children with opaque corneas and primary congenital glaucoma (PCG) or developmental glaucoma with ocular or systemic anomalies (DG). METHODS: EG was performed for approximately 300 degrees of the angle through temporal and superonasal corneal incisions. We retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases from 2003 to 2007. Primary outcome was intraocular pressure (IOP) change from baseline to last postoperative visit. Success was defined as IOP < or=21 mm Hg with or without medication but no further surgical intervention. RESULTS: Fourteen eyes of 8 patients (4 PCG, 4 DG) were included. Mean age at surgery was 3.88+/-3.72 months. The reduction in IOP from baseline to the last follow-up visit was -16.7+/-16.7 mm Hg. Success was achieved in 6 of the 16 eyes (Total=43%, PCG=50%, DG=30%). Corneal diameter and axial length remained stable in all eyes. Two patients with DG needed additional surgery after 8 to 9 months. Complications included cataract and zonular dialysis both in 2 patients with aniridia. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study indicates that EG shows reasonable potential for IOP control in congenital glaucoma. The safety and efficacy of EG needs to be further studied with a larger sample size and comparison to other angle surgery techniques.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".