Ophthalmologic Outcomes Following Fronto-Orbital Advancement for Unicoronal Craniosynostosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unicoronal craniosynostosis predisposes to ophthalmologic abnormalities such as strabismus, astigmatism, and amblyopia. The authors explored the ophthalmologic outcomes following fronto-orbital advancement (FOA). A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. Included studies reported postoperative rates of strabismus, astigmatism, and/or amblyopia. Two independent reviewers performed screening and extracted data including preoperative rates, laterality and severity of findings, need for ocular surgery, and timing of FOA. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Methodologic Index for Non-Randomized Studies scale and American Society of Plastic Surgeons Evidence Rating Scale for Therapeutic Studies. A total of 231 abstracts were screened. Sixteen articles were eligible for qualitative synthesis including 13 case series and 3 retrospective comparative studies. Nine studies contained both preoperative and postoperative data, but for strabismus only. Postoperative prevalence of strabismus was 19% to 100%. Rates increased in 4 studies and decreased in 3. Incidences of new and resolved cases of strabismus were 0% to 60% and 0% to 33%, respectively. Twenty-five percent to 100% of patients required strabismus surgery. Postoperative rates of astigmatism were 15% to 92%. Fourteen percent to 41% had clinically significant anisometropia, predisposing to amblyopia. The postoperative prevalence of amblyopia was 3% to 56%. In summary, FOA does not appear to reduce rates of strabismus, astigmatism, or amblyopia. In addition, surgery carries the risk of iatrogenic strabismus. Earlier intervention and endoscopic techniques may reduce prevalence and severity, but additional research is required.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".