Endocanalicular Laser Dacryocystorhinostomy With Mucosal Flaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the technique of endocanalicular laser dacryocystorhinostomy with mucosal flap creation and to report the outcomes of this technique. METHODS: Prospective noncomparative case series of 7 patients with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction undergoing endocanalicular laser dacryocystorhinostomy with mucosal flap. The mucosal flap was created using an endoscopic endonasal approach. An endocanalicular approach was used to fashion the lacrimal sac opening and the osteotomy of the lacrimal sac fossa. RESULTS: Nine procedures were performed in 7 female patients. Average patient age was 68±15 years. Intraoperative complications included bleeding during the creation of the mucosal flap in 1 patient. The procedure was associated with no pain to moderate pain in all cases. Anatomical success was achieved in 89% of procedures and symptomatic relief was achieved in 89% of surgeries for an average follow up of 10 ± 5 months. Only 1 patient required an external dacryocystorhinostomy revision because of postoperative restenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Endocanalicular laser dacryocystorhinostomy provides a minimally invasive approach to epiphora with a good success rate. The addition of a nasal mucosal flap to this technique may aid in proper fistulization and should be studied in larger prospective trials.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".