Toxic anterior segment syndrome and possible association with ointment in the anterior chamber following cataract surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report clinical and laboratory findings of 8 cases of toxic anterior segment syndrome (TASS) related to an oily substance in the anterior chamber of patients following cataract surgery with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. SETTING: John Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. METHODS: Eight patients had uneventful phacoemulsification by the same surgeon via clear corneal incisions with implantation of the same 3-piece silicone IOL design. Postoperative medications included antibiotic/steroid ointment and pilocarpine gel; each eye was firmly patched at the end of the procedure. On the first postoperative day, some patients presented with diffuse corneal edema, increased intraocular pressure, and an oily film-like material within the anterior chamber coating the corneal endothelium. The others presented with an oily bubble floating inside the anterior chamber, which was later seen coating the IOL. Additional surgical procedures required included penetrating keratoplasty, IOL explantation, and trabeculectomy. Two corneal buttons were analyzed histopathologically. Two explanted IOLs had gross and light microscopic analyses (as well as surface analyses of 1 of them), and 4 other explanted IOLs had gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Pathological examination of the corneas showed variable thinning of the epithelium with edema. The stroma was diffusely thickened and the endothelial cell layer was absent. Evaluation of the explanted IOLs confirmed the presence of an oily substance coating large areas of their anterior and posterior optic surfaces. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry of the lens extracts identified a mixed chain hydrocarbon compound that was also found in the gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analyses of the ointment used postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the ointment gained access to the eye, causing the postoperative complications described. These cases highlight the importance of appropriate wound construction and integrity, as well as the risks of tight eye patching following placement of ointment.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".