Pupil Dilation With Intra-Cameral Lidocaine Versus Topical Midriatics During Phacoemulsification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate pupil dilation with intra-cameral injection of preservative-free lidocaine 1% (ICL) versus topical eye midriatics during phacoemulsification. METHODS: This case-control study included 40 patients with similar bilateral senile cataract scheduled for phacoemulsification and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. patient's first eye received topical midriatic eye drops as control group and next eye operated by intra cameral preservative free lidocaine 1% without any preoperative or intraoperative midriatics. We did not add epinephrine to the irrigating solution in either group. The first eyes received 3 drops of cyclopentolate 1% and tropicamide 1% each 5 minutes, with first dose 60 minutes before surgery. The horizontal pupil diameter was measured before and after pupil dilation using the same caliper with operation microscope total surgical time was recorded in both groups. RESULTS: Patients included 20 male and 20 female with mean age of 72 and 70.9 years old .4 patients were diabetic and 11 cases had pseudo-exfoliation. Pupil diameter increased in both case and control groups significantly (P value<0.0) but the difference between mean increase in pupil size wasn't significantly different. Mean increase in pupil size was significantly greater in patients without pseudo-exfoliation (4.10 mm vs 3.85 mm, independent t test, P<0.05). There was no significant difference between diabetic and non- diabetic patients regarding of pre- and post-injection diameter of the pupil. CONCLUSION: Intra-cameral preservative-free lidocaine 1% supply adequate midriasis during cataract surgery by itself.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".