Revisiting early postoperative follow-up after phacoemulsification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether postoperative evaluation of routine phacoemulsification can be safely and effectively performed on the day of surgery and 4 days postoperatively and evaluate the incidence and management of early intraocular pressure (IOP) elevations 3 to 7 hours postoperatively in patients with or without glaucoma. SETTING: Community-based hospital. METHODS: This retrospective series comprised 465 consecutive patients who had phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation. All patients had postoperative follow-up on the day of surgery (3 to 7 hours postoperatively) and at 4 days. Patients were classified into 2 groups: nonglaucoma (NG), 396 patients; and glaucoma (GL), 69 patients. The main outcome measures were the incidence and management of postoperative complications including IOP spikes, wound leaks, uveitis, and endophthalmitis. RESULTS: Three to 7 hours postoperatively, 73 NG (18.4%) and 32 GL (46.4%) patients had IOP elevations greater than 28 mm Hg, a significant change from baseline (P <.0001). Fourteen NG (3.6%) and 13 GL (18.8%) patients had IOP elevations greater than 40 mm Hg (P <.0001). Significant IOP elevations were effectively managed with a paracentesis with or without short-term antiglaucoma medications on the day of surgery, with 75 NG (18.9%) and 39 GL (56.5%) patients requiring IOP intervention. There were no IOP elevations greater than 21 mm Hg on the next day or at 4 days. There were no complications that were missed at the same-day evaluation that may have been identified at the 1-day postoperative visit. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that after routine phacoemulsification, patients can be safely and effectively reviewed on the day of surgery and 4 days postoperatively to identify and manage early postoperative IOP spikes. A significant number of patients, particularly those with preexisting glaucoma, had potentially harmful IOP spikes 3 to 7 hours postoperatively.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".