Evisceration With Implant Placement Posterior to Posterior Sclera
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the results and potential benefit of placement of a porous orbital implant (aluminum oxide) posterior to posterior sclera and compare the exposure rate with a former evisceration technique involving a posterior sclerotomy with placement of a porous implant partly within the scleral shell and partly within the intraconal space. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective, interventional case series. A chart review of 93 patients undergoing evisceration with placement of an aluminum oxide orbital implant in conjunction with 2 different posterior sclerotomy techniques between 1999 and 2013 was carried out. Seventy-one patients met the inclusion criteria having 1 of 2 posterior sclerotomy techniques with an aluminum oxide orbital implant, a normal or near normal size eye and at least 6 months follow-up. Retrospective data analysis included demographic profile and treatment outcomes of the different posterior sclerotomy techniques. This study was performed with Institutional Review Board Approval and in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. RESULTS: Thirty patients underwent the posterior radial sclerotomy technique, while 41 patients underwent implant placement posterior to posterior sclera technique. The average size implant used in the posterior radial sclerotomy technique was 18 mm versus 20 mm in the implant placement posterior to posterior sclera technique (p < 0.001) with the implant placed posterior to posterior sclera. The exposure rate with the posterior radial sclerotomy technique was 5 of the 30 patients (16.7%) and 0 of 41 (0%) for the implant placement posterior to posterior sclera technique (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Placement of an aluminum oxide orbital implant posterior to posterior sclera allowed the placement of larger implants which allowed enhancement of socket volume. In addition, it appeared to have a decreased risk of implant exposure during the study period. Porous implant placement posterior to posterior sclera is an alternate posterior sclerotomy technique that allows coverage of the implant surface with 3 layers of autogenous sclera.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".