Shovel and Cut Technique: Beveled Vitrectomy Probes to Address Diabetic Tractional Retinal Detachments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe a surgical technique using the structural advantages of beveled tip cutters. METHODS: The introduction of beveled tips has been one of the few modifications that have been performed to vitrectomy probes since first described by Machemer in 1972. Shovel and cut technique uses this incredible modification to access tighter planes and remove broad diabetic membranes. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNIQUE: The shovel and cut technique can be used with any gauge probe to which the bevel tip is applied. The beveled tip of the cutter is used in a shovel manner to create a tissue plane between the diabetic plaque and the retina. As the beveled tip of the cutter moves parallel to the underlying retina, scar tissue naturally feeds into the cutting port where it is cut and aspirated with low flow rates. CONCLUSION: Shovel and cut technique takes advantage of beveled tip technological innovation to allow easy access and tissue dissection of the most difficult plaques in diabetic membranes. This technique allows us to remove these plaques in a safer, more controlled manner than previous described techniques.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".