Probing without Irrigation in Children with Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of probing, without fluorescein irrigation, as a primary treatment for epiphora and/or mucous discharge, secondary to congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) METHODS: The medical records of nine-two children (127 eyes) with CNLDO who underwent a single probing without the use of fluorescein irrigation between January 2006 and December 2011 were reviewed retrospectively. Inclusion criteria were no prior nasolacrimal surgical procedure, history of epiphora and/or discharge since birth or shortly after birth in one or both eyes and at least one of the following clinical signs: epiphora, muco-purulent discharge and increased tear meniscus height. Children were investigated in two sub-groups based on age at time of probing; group 1 (51 eyes/40 children) included children who underwent probing at age ≤ 2 years and group 2 (76 eyes/52 children) included children who underwent probing at age > 2years. The primary outcome was the complete disappearance of symptoms and signs in the affected eye(s), assessed at 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: The success rate for the overall sample was 83.5 % (106/127 eyes), in group 1 was 90.2% (46/51) and in group 2 was 78.9% (60/76). There was no significant difference in success rate between groups (p=0.094). Gender (p=0.292), affected eye (p=0.647) and bilateral cases (p=0.739) were not associated with successful elimination of symptoms. CONCLUSION: Probing without fluorescein irrigation for CNLDO beyond 1 year of age is highly successful and comparable to the published efficacy rates of the traditional probing with fluorescein irrigation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".