Pneumatic Vitreolysis for the Treatment of Symptomatic Vitreomacular Traction: A Prospective Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of pneumatic vitreolysis in the treatment of symptomatic focal vitreomacular traction (VMT). Methods: Patients choosing intravitreal gas injection as their preferred treatment for symptomatic VMT were invited to participate in this prospective study; 0.3 mL of perfluoropropane gas was injected. Optical coherence tomography was performed pre-and postprocedure to determine the proportion of eyes showing release of VMT. Results: Nine eyes of nine participants were included in the study, with a mean follow-up of 5.0±1.8 months. Gas injection resulted in the release of VMT in 7 of 9 eyes (78%) during the course of the study. Both eyes in which the VMT failed to release also showed an improvement in central macular anatomy. Mean visual acuity improved from logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) 0.33±0.14 (Snellen equivalent, ∼20/42) to logMAR 0.24±0.21 (Snellen, ∼20/35) at final follow-up ( P = .03); 8 of 9 patients (89%) reported a subjective improvement in their presenting symptoms and/or vision during the study period. The mean maximum foveal thickness of 480 ± 22 μm at baseline reduced to 282 ± 94 μm by the time of the final visit ( P = .002). Two patients had retinopexy for retinal breaks/suspect breaks. Conclusions: Pneumatic vitreolysis is an effective treatment for symptomatic VMT and may offer cost savings for patients and/or health services.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".