MASSIVE SUBRETINAL GAS AFTER VITRECTOMY SURGERY: MECHANISM AND MANAGEMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the complication of subretinal gas after pars plana vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, as well as its management. METHODS: The presence of subretinal gas was noted on postoperative Day 1 after pars plana vitrectomy for a chronic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Resolution of subretinal gas was facilitated by an infusion line and external sclerotomy to expand the vitreous cavity. Residual subretinal gas was removed through a posterior retinotomy after fluid-air exchange. RESULTS: This technique resulted in the successful evacuation of subretinal gas, allowing for chorioretinal adhesion and reattachment of the retina. CONCLUSION: Subretinal gas can rarely occur after pars plana vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. This complication can be successfully managed by way of external drainage, followed by evacuation of residual gas through fluid-air exchange and posterior retinotomy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".