The Role of Postoperative Bandage Contact Lens in Patients Undergoing Fasanella-Servat Ptosis Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether a bandage contact lens (BCL) improves patient comfort in the postoperative period in patients undergoing ptosis repair using the Fasanella-Servat technique, compared with no BCL. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-masked, comparison study, all patients had bilateral Fasanella-Servat surgery. A total of 30 patients were randomized to receive a BCL in one eye and no BCL in the other eye. Patient discomfort was measured as the primary outcome using the Eye Sensation Scale. Blurred vision was measured as a secondary outcome using selected questions from the Ocular Surface Disease Index. The surgeries were performed by 2 surgeons (J.T.H and R.S.A). Outcomes were measured one week following the procedure. RESULTS: Patients reported significantly less discomfort in the eye receiving a BCL, with only 13.3% ranking discomfort as "moderate" or "severe," compared with the eye not receiving BCL, where 63.3% of patients rated discomfort as "moderate" or "severe" (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in patient-reported blurred vision between the 2 groups (p = 0.520). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a bandage contact lens after Fasanella-Servat procedure for ptosis repair is recommended as it improves patient comfort. In addition, it has no detrimental effect on patient-reported blurring of vision.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".