Treatment of Previous Decentered Excimer Laser Ablation With Combined Myopic and Hyperopic Ablations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Decentration of the ablation zone is an occasional complication of excimer laser refractive surgery. We describe a technique to recenter the ablation zone without changing the refractive status obtained by the first surgery. METHODS: Sixteen eyes of 14 patients had moderate or marked ablation decentration after previous excimer laser surgery for myopia, but with only minor residual refractive error. Five eyes had spectacle-corrected visual acuity loss and all these patients reported various symptoms such as halos, ghost images, or night driving difficulties. To recenter the ablation zone without changing the refraction, a combination myopic and hyperopic treatment was used. The hyperopic treatment was decentered toward the initial decentered myopic ablation. A myopia ablation of near equal dioptric value was then added, but decentered in the opposite direction. The Bausch & Lomb Technolas Keracor 217 laser was used. RESULTS: After the first retreatment, the centration of the ablation zone was improved in 15 of the 16 eyes. All eyes with initial spectacle-corrected visual acuity loss recovered lines of visual acuity. Subjective decrease of symptoms was described as follows: nil in one eye, mild in one eye, moderate in four eyes, and marked in ten eyes. A second retreatment was needed in five eyes: in two to improve centration and in three to correct residual ametropia. The only complication (one eye) was induced decentration 180 degrees away from the initial decentration with a 1-line spectacle-corrected visual acuity loss, and additional retreatment was required. CONCLUSION: A combination of decentered myopic and hyperopic ablation of an equivalent dioptric magnitude, each decentered 180 degrees apart, was a useful method to correct previous excimer laser treatment decentration, with minimal alteration of refractive status that was obtained by the initial surgery.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".