The history of pneumatic retinopexy: have we come full circle?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The historical literature on the treatment of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) was reviewed from 1911 to the present, focusing on the role of intravitreal air and gas. The history of the pneumatic retinopexy (PnR) technique is described from its original roots to the current day procedure. The treatment of RRD has evolved tremendously over the past century. The introduction of intravitreal gas as a tamponade to reattach the retina was critical in the development of modern day PnR. Although PnR is not a new technique, relatively recent randomized trials have demonstrated the numerous advantages of this procedure compared to pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and scleral buckle. From a historical perspective, PnR has its origin in 1911 when Ohm performed intravitreal air injection after external subretinal fluid drainage in an attempt to treat RRD. The evolution of the procedure was driven by the introduction and experience with inert expansile intravitreal gas injections, and several great surgeons made critical contributions to the development of the procedure. There is substantial controversy pertaining to the original description of PnR in the literature. Credit has generally been given to Hilton and Grizzard from the United States, although Alfredo Dominguez from Spain published the first description of the procedure and he went to great lengths in an attempt to be rightfully recognized for this. The first randomized trial in retinal detachment repair was led by Dr. Paul Tornambe, comparing PnR to scleral buckle and an additional randomized trial was subsequently carried out demonstrating functional advantages of PnR compared to PPV.
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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".