Intraocular Foreign Body Removal by 23-Gauge Micro Incision Vitrectomy Surgery and Back Flush Flute Needle: A Case Series Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>This study aimed to consider a new technique to extract an intraocular foreign body by 23-gauge micro incision vitrectomy surgery (23G-MIVS).</p><p><strong>METHOD: </strong>This case series was done on Patients with intraocular foreign bodies and cataract during 2012-2015 in Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. Phacoemulsification and aspiration of lens nucleus, intraocular lens implantation, 23G-MIVS, and extraction of the foreign body were performed on patients. The foreign body was removed through a posterior capsulor hexis, anterior continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis, and a corneal incision. In all cases, the foreign body was safely removed through the corneal incision with back flush Flute Needle, and IOL was implanted and well positioned. The surgical incision did not require suturing.</p><p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> This technique was successful for the patients and the corneal endothelial cell density was maintained over 2000 cells/mm2 in all cases during recent follow-up examinations.</p><p><strong>CONCLUSION: </strong>We found that 23G-MIVS with this technique is suitable to remove the foreign body. It is safe, without complications, and can be used without enlarging the 23-gauge sclerotomy.</p>
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".