Circumferential viscodilation of Schlemm’s canal for open-angle glaucoma: ab-interno vs ab-externo canaloplasty with tensioning suture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the efficacy of minimally invasive ab-interno canaloplasty (ABiC) vs ab-externo canaloplasty (CP) in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) and glaucoma medication dependence. Patients and methods: This nonrandomized, retrospective, single-center, paired eye study assessed the 12-month outcomes of 12 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma who underwent ABiC in one eye and CP in the other eye, either as stand-alone procedures or combined with cataract extraction. Primary endpoints included mean IOP and number of glaucoma medications at 12 months postoperative. Secondary endpoints included surgical complications and secondary interventions. Results: Four males and eight females with a mean age of 73.8±12.6 years were included. In the CP group, the mean preoperative IOP was 18.1±3.9 mmHg on 2.4±0.5 medications, which reduced to 13.5±2.2 mmHg ( P <0.05) on 0.9±0.9 medications ( P <0.001). In the ABiC group, the mean preoperative IOP was 18.5±3.4 mmHg on 2.4±0.5 medications and postoperative IOP was 13.8±2.2 mmHg ( P <0.05) on 0.8±0.8 medications ( P <0.05). There was no significant difference in IOP and medication use between treatment groups at 12 months postoperative. No serious adverse events were recorded in either group, though two patients in the CP group developed pressure spikes 10 mmHg beyond preoperative IOP. Conclusion: This paired eye study found ABiC to have comparable IOP lowering and glaucoma medication reduction to CP in open-angle glaucoma. This suggests ABiC may be a suitable method for improving aqueous outflow via the trabecular pathway. Further large-scale investigation is needed. Keywords: ab-interno canaloplasty, intraocular pressure, primary open-angle glaucoma, ab-externo canaloplasty, glaucoma medications, ABiC, MIGS, canaloplasty
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".