Intracameral ketorolac concentration at the beginning and end of cataract surgery following preoperative topical ketorolac administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the intracameral concentration of ketorolac tromethamine (ketorolac) at the beginning and end of cataract surgery following preoperative topical administration. SETTING: Santa Barbara Surgery Center, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. DESIGN: This was a pre-post, interventional, single-arm study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing cataract extraction and lens replacement (CELR) were eligible. Written informed consent was obtained from 14 patients who were prescribed topical ophthalmic ketorolac according to the surgeon's usual practice beginning the day prior to surgery. The surgeon withdrew 100 μL of aqueous humor from the operative eye immediately prior to the initial surgical incision and again just prior to final anterior chamber reinflation and wound closure. Ketorolac concentrations in the intracameral fluid samples were measured. RESULTS: Thirteen of 14 patients used four doses of ketorolac the day prior to surgery as directed, and one patient used three doses. On the day of surgery, all 14 patients administered one drop of topical ketorolac on awakening and one drop after arriving at the surgery center. Preoperative ketorolac concentrations for the 12 patients from whom samples were collected ranged from 4.9 to 369 ng/mL. End-of-procedure sample concentrations ranged from <1.0 (the lower limit of quantification [LLOQ]) to 6.32 ng/mL, with eight of 12 patients having ketorolac levels below the LLOQ. CONCLUSION: At-home compliance with topical ketorolac was good, with 92.9% of patients using it as directed. Following CELR, levels of ketorolac in the aqueous humor were low, and 66.7% of patients had undetectable levels.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".