Intraocular pressure after bilateral cataract surgery using Healon, Healon5, and Healon GV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether there is a difference in frequency or severity of postoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) spikes after bilateral phacoemulsification with complete ophthalmic viscosurgical device (OVD) removal when Healon5 (sodium hyaluronate 2.3%), Healon (sodium hyaluronate 1%), or Healon GV (sodium hyaluronate 1.4%) is used. SETTING: York Finch Eye Associates and Humber River Regional Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Bilateral cataract surgery was performed in 99 patients; 50 were randomly assigned to receive Healon5 in 1 eye and Healon GV in the fellow eye and 49, Healon in 1 eye and Healon GV in the fellow eye. The IOP was measured preoperatively as well as 5 and 24 hours and 7 days postoperatively. The mean IOP and standard deviation at each time interval were calculated for each OVD. The results were compared among the OVDs using Student t tests for each time at which IOP was assessed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in postoperative IOP spikes among the Healon5, Healon, and Healon GV groups; however, patients receiving lower viscosity OVDs had a lower mean IOP at 24 hours. All groups had increased IOP at 5 and 24 hours and reduced IOP at 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: Within a family of molecularly similar OVDs, lower viscosity OVDs appear to cause slightly lower mean elevations in IOP in normal patients at 24 hours. However, if the OVD is removed, postoperative IOP spikes above 21 mm Hg appear related more to patient factors (eg, predisposition in glaucoma patients) and surgically induced trauma than to the specific long-chain non-cross-linked hyaluronan OVD used.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".