MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2628090597 · doi:10.1016/j.ajoc.2017.06.013

An unusual case of acute angle-closure glaucoma following deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty using the “big bubble” technique

2017· article· en· W2628090597 on OpenAlexaff
Samir Jabbour, Adam Muzychuk, Younes Agoumi, Mona Harissi‐Dagher

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOphthalmologyDissection (medical)KeratoconusGlaucomaDescemet's membraneIntraocular pressureAcute anglePupilSurgeryCorneaOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To report the first case of acute angle closure due to a high-pressure Descemet membrane detachment following deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) using the "big bubble" technique. OBSERVATIONS: A 25-year-old man underwent DALK surgery for keratoconus using the "big bubble" technique in which an air bubble is injected in deep stroma to promote dissection of underlying Descemet membrane from stroma. Surgery was uneventful and the patient was discharged home in good conditions. On post-operative day 1, the patient came back with severe periocular pain. Intra-ocular pressure was found to be 38 mmHg. Anterior-segment OCT revealed a "double anterior chamber" created by a high-pressure Descemet detachment that was occluding the pupil and causing secondary acute angle closure glaucoma. The patient was brought back promptly to the operating room where the high-pressure chamber was properly evacuated, allowing Descemet membrane to properly reattach to stroma. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPORTANCE: Inability to recognize stroma from Descemet membrane during the dissection of the "big bubble technique" can result in failure to evacuate the high-pressure Descemet membrane detachment, putting the patient at risk for acute angle closure glaucoma from occlusion of the pupil. Proper dissection of stroma from underlying DM is a challenging and crucial step in the "big bubble" technique. Several methods, such as the injection of small bubbles in the anterior chamber or the use of intra-operative anterior segment OCT could be employed to prevent such a complication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology Case ReportsSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207