Prospective evaluation of intraoperative intraocular lens stress fracture during cataract surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the incidence and risk factors of intraocular lens (IOL) stress fracture during cataract surgery. SETTING: Ivey Eye Institute, London, Ontario, Canada. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized cohort study. METHODS: Patients scheduled for routine cataract surgery were randomized into 2 study groups. The 2 groups only differed in the use of Monarch IOL delivery cartridges for insertion of an Acrysof IQ SN60WF IOL. The cartridge C group used Monarch cartridge C, and the cartridge D group used Monarch cartridge D. Patients were examined for IOL stress fractures. RESULTS: A total of 386 study eyes were enrolled. The overall incidence of IOL stress fracture was 6.22%. The incidence of IOL stress fracture with cartridge C and cartridge D groups were 3.16% and 9.18%, respectively (P = .01). The IOL stress fracture rate for IOL power less than 18.0 D was 3.45%, IOL power between 18.0 D to 23.5 D was 6.49%, and IOL power over 23.5 D was 10.81%. A total of 24 IOL stress fractures were observed. Among IOL stress fractures, 45.8% were equal to or less than 1.0 mm in length. Two thirds of stress fractures were located over the central 4 mm of the IOL optic. No subjective adverse visual outcomes were reported from any of the observed IOL stress fractures. CONCLUSION: Intraocular lens stress fracture is recognizable risk during cataract surgery. Risk factors for IOL stress fracture include smaller IOL delivery cartridges and IOLs of higher refractive powers. There was a low risk for IOL stress fracture resulting in adverse subjective visual outcomes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".