Evaluation of Big Bubble Technique for Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty in Patients With Radial Keratotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the outcome of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) and success rates of the big-bubble (BB) technique or manual dissection after a failed use of the BB technique in eyes that underwent prior radial keratotomy (RK). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent DALK after RK at Toronto Western Hospital, Canada, between 1999 and 2017 was performed. Demographic characteristics, success rates of the BB technique and manual dissection, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and best spectacle-corrected visual acuity before and after corneal transplant were analyzed. RESULTS: Ten eyes of 9 patients were included in the analysis. The average age was 64 ± 10 years (range 49-82). The average time between the RK surgery and the corneal transplant was 20 ± 5 years (range 8-24). Indications for corneal transplant were significant irregular astigmatism in 5 eyes (50%), central scarring or haze in 4 eyes (40%), and progressive hyperopia with visual fluctuation in one eye (10%). BB was successfully achieved in one eye (10%). In 6 eyes (60%), manual dissection was performed, and in 3 eyes (30%), DALK surgery was converted to penetrating keratoplasty. The average best spectacle-corrected visual acuity on the last follow-up visit was 0.26 ± 0.08 logMAR (Snellen equivalent 20/36). One eye that underwent manual DALK and one eye that underwent penetrating keratoplasty developed a rejection episode 4 and 2 months after keratoplasty, respectively. In both cases, rejection resolved with topical steroids. CONCLUSIONS: In eyes that underwent prior RK, DALK by manual dissection should be considered as a preferable surgical technique.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".