Stabilization of refractive error and associated factors following small incision phacoemulsification cataract surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests that refractive stabilization occurs rapidly following small incision cataract surgery. Nonetheless, many guidelines still suggest waiting four to 6 weeks before prescribing corrective lenses. This study was undertaken to supplement the existing literature regarding refractive stabilization, and evaluate multiple contributing factors that could dissuade clinicians from confidently correcting refractive error in the early post-operative course following routine cataract surgeries. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing phacoemulsification cataract surgery with uncomplicated surgeries and post-surgical courses at the Calgary Ophthalmology Centre (Calgary, Alberta, Canada) were included in this prospective observational case series. Exclusion criteria included known corneal dystrophies, infectious keratitis, complicated surgery or toric/multifocal IOLs. Data was collected at weekly intervals for a total of 6 weeks. Collected data included autorefraction, visual acuity, corneal pachymetry, and effective lens position. RESULTS: One hundred six eyes of 104 patients were included in this study. Post-operative sphere, cylinder and spherical equivalent were not significantly different at any post-operative week compared with week six, and 80-86% of patients were within 0.5D of last follow-up spherical equivalent at any week. The secondary outcomes of central corneal thickness, effective lens position and visual acuity did, however, exhibit significant differences between early post-operative weeks and last follow-up values. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that refractive error can be effectively measured and corrected as early as one-week post-operatively in the majority of patients, though other measures of post-operative stability including central corneal thickness, effective lens position and visual acuity can require up to 4 weeks to stabilize. Thus a conservative and pragmatic approach may be to wait until 4 weeks post-operatively prior to obtaining refractive correction following uncomplicated phacoemulsification cataract surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".