Second Ahmed Valve Insertion in the Same Eye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the results of same-eye second Ahmed glaucoma drainage device (GDD) insertion in eyes with refractory glaucoma despite previous Ahmed GDD insertion and maximal tolerated medical therapy. METHODS: Noncomparative retrospective case series. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients who had undergone 2 GDD surgeries in the same eye were identified. Following chart review, 19 patients had follow-up of at least 1 year and were included in the analysis. All surgeries involved Ahmed valves. The mean drop in intraocular pressure (IOP) at 12 months and at final follow-up was 8 (43%) and 7.9 mm Hg (42%), respectively. The mean number of glaucoma medications used postoperatively (2.4 at 12 mo and 2.6 at final follow-up) was significantly less than preoperatively (4.1). Although the mean visual acuity was poorer postoperatively, this did not reach statistical significance. Sixteen of the 19 patients (84.2%) were defined as complete or partial success, as they achieved IOP of >/=5 and </=21 mm Hg and >/=20% decrease on preoperative IOP with or without glaucoma drops. Three patients were considered complete failures at 12 months and final follow-up. There were no significant intraoperative complications. One patient (5.3%) required anterior chamber reformation on day 1 postoperatively. One patient (5.3%) suffered a decrease in vision from 20/70 preoperatively to counting fingers postoperatively owing to corneal decompensation. CONCLUSIONS: Second Ahmed GDD surgery seems to be a safe and effective option when IOP remains uncontrolled despite previous GDD implantation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".