Analysis of Extended Transconjunctival Approach With Lateral Paracanthal Incision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the subcilliary or conventional transconjunctival approach has been widely used, it often fails to get acceptable visual fields or scars. This study directly compared the extended transconjunctival approach accompanied by lateral paracanthal incision with other traditional approaches in terms of surgical fields, the outcomes and complications. This retrospective chart review included 113 patients (82 males and 31 females; mean age: 38.7 years; range: 11-87 years), who underwent orbital reduction from November 2009 to September 2013. In extended transconjunctival approach, the external skin of the inferolateral canthal tendon was demarcated in a natural skin crease approximately 5 mm from the lateral canthus. The surgical approach was based on anteroseptal transconjunctival dissection. Paracanthal incision about 5 mm in length was performed. Esthetic and functional complications were evaluated, including the presence of a visible scar, lid retraction, or hypertrophic scar; epiphora, diplopia, global hematoma, persistent enophthamos, or exophthamos; and presence of entropion/ectropion. The extended transconjunctival approach resulted in a significant increase in the area of the surgical field statistically significant (P = 0.002). Complication rates are similar with other approach techniques. Postoperative scarring was confirmed by pictures taken in the outpatient clinic. The physicians' average Vancouver scar scale (VSS) of first physician was 1.26 and second physician was 1.2. Compared with the conventional transconjunctival approach, the extended transconjunctival approach with paracanthal incision had similar complication and scarring rates, as well as a lower scarring rate than the subciliary approach while providing much wider surgical fields.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".