Primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with inferior retinal breaks postoperative prone positioning results: 1 day versus 7 days
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: gas tamponade in patients with uncomplicated rhegmatogenous detachment and inferior retinal breaks, after 24-h postoperative prone positioning to similar patients with 1 week postoperative prone positioning. METHODS: Records of 5500 patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy between 2008 and 2015 were retrieved. Collected data included age, gender, number of retinal quadrants with retinal breaks, number of retinal breaks, macula status on presentation (attached or detached), phakic status (phakic, pseudophakic, or aphakic), and primary anatomical outcome (at 1 and 3 months post-operative). RESULTS: 270 patients met the study inclusion criteria (78 females, and 192 males). In the 24-h positioning arm (183 patients), the overall anatomical success rate was 96.2% at 1 month and 83.6% at 3 months. In the 1-week positioning group (87 patients), the overall anatomical success rate was 93% at 1 month and 79% at 3 months. Both positioning groups did not show statistical difference in outcome at 1 month (p-value = 0.7) or at 3 months (p-value = 0.39). Logistic regression analysis found that the number of retinal breaks correlates with the postoperative anatomical success at 3 months (odd ratio 0.8, p-value = 0.016). CONCLUSION: gas, and limited (24-h) prone positioning did not show statistical difference in the anatomical outcome (at 1, and 3 months) when compared with 1 week postoperative positioning. Larger prospective studies are warranted to further elucidate positioning role.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".