INDUCTION OF MACULAR DETACHMENT FOR THE TREATMENT OF PERSISTENT OR RECURRENT IDIOPATHIC MACULAR HOLES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze the efficacy of induced macular detachment for the treatment of persistent or recurrent idiopathic macular holes after treatment with one or more standard pars plana vitrectomies (PPVs) with internal limiting membrane peeling. METHODS: This study is a retrospective consecutive case series of 10 patients who underwent a PPV with subretinal balanced salt solution injection from 2011 to 2014 to treat persistent or recurrent idiopathic macular holes. All patients had previously undergone PPV with internal limiting membrane peeling. Visual acuity, ocular examination findings, and optical coherence tomographic images were reviewed preoperatively and postoperatively to assess the anatomical and visual outcomes of this procedure. RESULTS: Nine of the 10 patients who underwent the procedure had closure of their macular holes postoperatively (90%) and remained closed 6 months postoperatively. Most patients reported a subjective visual improvement. A mean objective visual improvement of 16 letters (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study, 0.324 logMAR) was seen between preoperative and 6-month postoperative assessments of all patients (pre = 1.490, post = 1.166; P = 0.022). Subgroup analysis of patients with successful closure revealed 20 letters of improvement (0.398 logMAR) in visual acuity (pre = 1.491, post = 1.093; P = 0.004). There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: In eyes with persistent or recurrent idiopathic macular holes after standard PPV with internal limiting membrane peeling, repeat PPV with subretinal balanced salt solution injection to create a macular detachment may be a viable surgical treatment option. Our results show improved anatomical and visual outcomes postoperatively that compare favorably to other case series describing various surgical treatments for these challenging cases.
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 | 0.000 | 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".