Foldable silicone versus poly(methyl methacrylate) intraocular lenses in combined phacoemulsification and trabeculectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the outcome of phacotrabeculectomy with implantation of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) or foldable silicone intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: Thirty patients were randomized to receive a 5.5 mm PMMA IOL through a 5.0 mm incision or a foldable silicone IOL (Allergan SI-30) through a 3.2 mm incision. Visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), bleb survival, inflammation, endothelial cell changes, and complications were examined at intervals up to 6 months. RESULTS: There was no difference between the 2 groups in final visual outcome, final IOP control, bleb survival, and endothelial cell changes. Two months after surgery, there was significantly more inflammation in the silicone IOL group than in the PMMA group (P <. 05). The silicone group had a significantly higher combined complication rate including iris capture, choroidal effusion, and epiretinal membrane formation (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Foldable silicone IOLs were comparable to conventional PMMA lenses in visual outcome, IOP control, bleb formation, and endothelial changes. However, some silicone lenses are associated with an increased risk of recurrence of inflammation and a higher final complication rate in combined cataract and filtration surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".