Half top hat wound configuration for penetrating keratoplasty: 1-year results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the 1-year outcomes after half-top-hat (HTH) penetrating keratoplasty (PK) versus top-hat (TH) PK and regular PK. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical notes of 87 consecutive patients who had undergone either HTH PK (23 eyes), TH PK (36 eyes) or regular PK (35 eyes) at Toronto Western Hospital between 2002 and 2007. We evaluated best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), topographic and refractive results, high-order ocular aberrations, endothelial cell counts and complication rates. RESULTS: The three groups of patients did not differ significantly in their demographics (age, gender and laterality), donor endothelial cell counts, preoperative visual acuity or intraocular pressure (IOP). At 12 months postoperatively, BCVA was similar in the three groups, as was the mean spherical equivalent and cylinder. The time to sutures removal was significantly shorter in the HTH PK versus regular PK groups (3.8 (1.2) vs 9.7 (1.1) months, p<0.0001), and the endothelial cell counts were significantly higher (p = 0.003). The IOP was higher in the HTH PK patients than in regular PK patients (p = 0.04). All high-order aberrations tested were significantly higher in the HTH PK than in the regular PK groups (p<0.01). Regular PK had a higher rate of astigmatism treated with relaxing incisions (n = 7 vs n = 2 in HTH PK) and dehiscence of wound incision (n = 2, versus n = 0 in HTH PK). CONCLUSIONS: BCVA and refractive results are similar after half-top-hat, top-hat and regular PK. Half-top-hat PK substantially speeds up visual recovery and contributes to significantly higher endothelial cell counts in the grafts 1 year after surgery.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".