To lift or recut: Changing trends in LASIK enhancement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report serious complications caused by recutting laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) flaps for enhancement and reconsider the current preferred method of LASIK enhancement. SETTING: Multiple surgeon practices. METHODS: This retrospective noncomparative nonconsecutive case series comprised LASIK patients in the private practices of 9 experienced refractive surgeons and those reported in a survey of refractive surgeons. Case histories, refractions, corneal topographies, slitlamp photographs, and measurements of uncorrected and best corrected (BCVA) visual acuity after recutting LASIK flaps were collected. Surveys of refractive surgeons and an analysis of changing practice trends among the authors and these surgeons were assessed. RESULTS: In 12 cases, significant loss of BCVA and subjective visual difficulties resulted from recutting LASIK flaps. Most surveyed surgeons had changed their practice from recutting to lifting flaps even 9 to 10 years postoperatively with good results. CONCLUSION: Recutting flaps for enhancement should be avoided unless other alternatives are unavailable.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".