Preoperative Brimonidine Tartrate 0.2% Does not Prevent an Intraocular Pressure Rise During Prostatectomy in Steep Trendelenburg Position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the effect of preoperative brimonidine tartrate 0.2% on intraocular pressure (IOP) during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in steep Trendelenburg position (sTBURG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective randomized controlled masked interventional trial, eligible patients scheduled for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in sTBURG at the Toronto General Hospital had one eye randomized to placebo (artificial tears) or drug (brimonidine tartrate 0.2%) preoperatively. Visual acuity (VA), tonometry, disc photography, visual field (VF), and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) assessments were performed preoperatively and postoperatively. A standardized anesthetic protocol was followed intraoperatively. IOP was measured using Tono-Pen AVIA (Reichert Inc., New York, NY) as follows: preanesthesia supine, anesthetized supine, hourly in sTBURG and awake supine. The primary outcome was IOP in sTBURG in the drug group compared with the placebo group. Secondary outcomes were changes in VA, VF, RNFL thickness, mean arterial pressure, and ocular perfusion pressure. This study was approved by University Health Network Research Ethics Board. RESULTS: In total, 26 eligible patients, mean age 61.9±5.1 years, were randomized to brimonidine (11 patients) and placebo (15 patients). Baseline IOP was not significantly different between the drug and placebo groups (P=0.42). Significant and sustained IOP elevation of >1.5X baseline in the sTBURG was noted in both groups. The mean IOP 1 hour after sTBURG was 29.4±6.9 and 27.2±3.4 mm Hg in the drug and placebo groups, respectively (P=0.35). No significant changes were noted in VA, VF, or RNFL. CONCLUSIONS: Significant and sustained IOP increases occur during sTBURG. Preoperative brimonidine does not prevent IOP spikes in sTBURG.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".