Corneal Lamellar Flap Retraction After LASIK Following Penetrating Keratoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe a case of lamellar flap retraction after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) to correct myopia and astigmatism after penetrating keratoplasty (PKP). METHODS: Eleven months after PKP, a 34-year-old man underwent uneventful LASIK. Preoperative manifest refraction was -5.50 + 4.00 x 55, giving a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/20. Three days after LASIK, the central cornea was clear with a 1- to 2-mm displacement and marked swelling of the inferior edge of the lamellar corneal flap, without central striae. The patient's uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) was 20/60. The flap was repositioned, sutured with 6 10-0 nylon interrupted sutures, and covered with a bandage contact lens. RESULTS: Five months after the repair, the cornea was clear, UCVA was 20/400, and manifest refraction was -9.50 + 6.00 x 75, giving a BCVA of 20/60. Three years later, manifest refraction was - 9.00 + 4.00 x 70, giving a BCVA of 20/40+2. CONCLUSION: In LASIK surgery after PKP, there is a risk of flap edema leading to retraction of the transplant wound. It may therefore be advisable to wait at least 1-2 years after PKP before performing LASIK. Patients who have corneal transplants should also be warned that they might have unique risks in LASIK treatment that may result in the loss of vision.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".