Modified Hotz Procedure Combined With Modified Z-Epicanthoplasty Versus Modified Hotz Procedure Alone for Epiblepharon Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of the modified Hotz procedure alone and combined with modified Z-epicanthoplasty for correction of epiblepharon. METHODS: Seventy-one Chinese patients who underwent epiblepharon repair were divided into 2 groups. In group 1, 33 patients (59 eyes) were operated on with the modified Hotz procedure. In group 2, 38 patients (71 eyes) were operated on with the modified Hotz procedure combined with modified Z-epicanthoplasty. Treatment outcomes were classified as "excellent" with no cilium-ocular surface touching, "fair" with 5 or fewer cilia-ocular surface touchings, and "poor" with more than 5 cilia-ocular surface touchings. Incision scars were evaluated by the Vancouver scar scale (VSS). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the age or sex distribution between the two groups. For group 1, the outcome was excellent for 46 eyes (78%) and fair or poor for 13 eyes (22%). For group 2, the outcome was excellent for 70 eyes (98.6%) and fair for only 1 eye (1.4%). Thus, group 2 had significantly more excellent outcomes compared with group 1 (p < 0.001). The Vancouver scar scale of the lower eyelids in group 1 was 1.10 ± 0.30 and 1.04 ± 0.20 in group 2 after correcting for the follow-up period (p = 0.292). The medial canthus Vancouver scar scale in group 2 was 1.13 ± 0.37, which was not different from the lower eyelid Vancouver scar scale (p = 0.471). CONCLUSIONS: The modified Hotz procedure combined with modified Z-epicanthoplasty is more effective in correcting lower eyelid epiblepharon than the modified Hotz procedure alone. The combined procedure does not produce obvious lower eyelid or medial canthus scars.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".