Eye Conformers as Socket Expanders in Children: Experience at a Tertiary Eye Hospital in Central Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To share our experience with pediatric orbital expansion using eye conformers for anophthalmia and microphthalmia and parental feedback on outcomes. Methods Cases of congenital anophthalmia and severe microphthalmia were managed with eye conformers for orbital expansion and formation of lid fornices at the anaplastology clinic of King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Saudi Arabia. Data were collected on the globe adaptation process and the perceived achievements by the parents at different follow-up visits. Parental feedback was collected on their acceptance of eye conformer use to address anophthalmia and microphthalmia. Results The anophthalmia/microphthalmia annual prevalence was 1.7 per 10,000 live births in Saudi Arabia. Of the 45 sockets treated for orbital expansion since 2014, 15 children were managed by using eye conformers. Six children had a bilateral birth defect. Severe microphthalmia was in seven children while eight children had anophthalmos. At the first visit, small eye conformers (nine), stem eye conformer (four), symblepharon ring (one), and hydrogel eye conformer (one) were fitted. After multiple visits and follow-ups, at the two-year follow-up, seven (46.7%) children were fitted while three (20%) were under the process of prosthesis fitting, as volume expansion was satisfactory. Parents of these children replied that they prefer this method over others and would recommend others to follow the same. Conclusions Orbital expansion and lid fornices formation by using an eye conformer is effective, easy, and acceptable to parents. It can be initiated in the early months of a child's life.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".