Sulcoflex Piggyback Intraocular Lens Implantation For Correction Of Refractive Errors Following Cataract Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the visual and refractive outcomes following implantation of a Sulcoflex intraocular lens (IOL) to correct pseudophakic refractive error. Methods: This retrospective chart review included 14 pseudophakic eyes of 13 patients who underwent implantation of a Sulcoflex IOL. The Sulcoflex IOL is a piggyback IOL technique where a secondary, supplementary lens is implanted in the ciliary sulcus. Results: Eleven eyes (78.6%) had a postoperative SE within 0.50 D of the targeted SE. Preoperative UDVA was 20/30 in 4 eyes (28.6%), and 20/40 or worse in 10 eyes (71.4%). Postoperative UDVA was 20/30 or better in all eyes, where half (50.0%) of eyes were 20/20 or better. The mean preoperative logMAR (0.50 ± 0.33) significantly improved to 0.06 ± 0.09, p<.01. There were no complications. Conclusions. The significant improvement in UDVA and the precision in reaching the target refraction suggest that the Sulcoflex is a viable and successful treatment option for pseudophakic refractive error.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".