Hemorrhagic complications associated with suprachoroidal buckling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple surgical techniques exist for the repair of rhegmatogenous retinal detachments (RRD). Suprachoroidal buckling (SCB), consisting of injecting viscoelastic material in the suprachoroidal space to allow chorioretinal apposition, has been recently described in the repair of RRD. The aim of this study is to report the complications of SCB and to propose measures to decrease their incidence during the learning curve. METHODS: A total of 26 eyes of 26 patients who underwent a SCB procedure for the management of RRD secondary to a single or multiple retinal breaks were enrolled. Patients were operated between January 2014 and March 2017 at two academic institutions. Patient and retinal detachment characteristics were obtained from the charts. Surgical videos were reviewed for every case and intraoperative complications were recorded. Complications observed postoperatively were obtained from the charts. RESULTS: Sixteen eyes (62%) underwent SCB alone, 5 eyes (19%) underwent additional gas tamponade and 5 eyes (19%) had combined pars plana vitrectomy. The most common complication was hemorrhage (6 cases, 23%). There were no cases of ischemic choroidal changes or hyperpigmentation at the edge of the dome. All six complications occurred in phakic patients who had inferior RRD with retinal breaks in the inferior quadrants. Isolated subretinal hemorrhage occurred in 4 patients and isolated suprachoroidal hemorrhage in 1 patient, and those did not affect final visual outcome. Extensive combined subretinal and suprachoroidal hemorrhage occurred in one case, and was complicated by phthisis bulbi. Re-detachment occurred in 4/6 (67%) of patients, and 5/6 (83%) of patients required a secondary procedure. Three out of 6 patients (50%) had at least 2 lines of visual acuity improvement. CONCLUSION: SCB performed for RRD can be associated with hemorrhagic complications. The hemorrhages are usually self-limited but may occasionally result in severe visual compromise when involving the suprachoroidal space. Specific surgical measures need to be undertaken in order to decrease the likelihood of complications and further studies are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of this 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".