The Use of Mersilene Mesh for Wrapping of Hydroxyapatite Orbital Implants: Mid-Term Result
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the results of Mersilene mesh wrapped hydroxyapatite orbital implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 63 patients operated between April 2002 and March 2006 were retrospectively reviewed. Parameters studied included sex, cause of enucleation, length of follow-up after operation, implant exposure, secondary implantation, and surgeon experience. Student's t-test and χ(2) were used for comparison group having implant exposure and those without implant exposure. RESULTS: The rate of exposure with use of Mersilene mesh was found to be 4.7%. Gender and cause of enucleation did not influence incidence of implant exposure in this study. The surgeon related factor, reported in terms of oculoplasty surgeon and non-oculoplasty surgeon, was a statistically significant factors that affected implant exposure. CONCLUSION: Mersilene showed favorable results in wrapping of hydroxyapatite orbital implants.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".