Comparison of Two Polypropylene Frontalis Suspension Techniques in 92 Patients With Oculopharyngeal Muscular Dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the functional outcome of the polypropylene trapezoid frontalis suspension with the polypropylene modified Crawford frontalis suspension in a large cohort of patients with oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy. METHODS: Retrospective, nonrandomized comparative case series. Patients with oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy who underwent bilateral polypropylene frontalis suspension were selected for chart review. Main outcome measures were margin reflex distance, duration of surgery, and ptosis recurrence. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients qualified for chart review; 39 patients underwent the trapezoid sling and 53 patients the modified Crawford sling. There was no difference in preoperative margin reflex distance or levator function between the 2 surgical groups. Postoperative improvement in margin reflex distance was 2.95 ± 1.56 mm in the trapezoid group compared with 2.85 ± 1.65 mm in the modified Crawford group (p = 0.67). Duration of surgery was 40.49 ± 13.33 minutes in the trapezoid group compared with 53.77 ± 16.04 minutes in the modified Crawford group (p < 0.001). Five percent of eyes in the trapezoid group had ptosis recurrence compared with 13% of eyes in the modified Crawford group (p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Both polypropylene frontalis suspension techniques generated an equivalent increase in margin reflex distance. However, the trapezoid frontalis suspension required less operative time and trended toward a lower rate of ptosis recurrence.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".