Applications of the Guarded-Needle External Drainage Technique in Vitreoretinal Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the surgical technique using the guarded-needle external drainage for a wide variety of applications in vitreoretinal surgery. METHODS: A step-by-step procedure and a surgical video using the guarded-needle external drainage technique are presented. In addition, a series of representative cases with wide-ranging diagnoses who underwent the technique is reviewed. DESCRIPTION AND TECHNIQUE: The guarded-needle using a 27-gauge thin-walled TSK needle (TSK Laboratory International) and a trimmed 70 buckle sleeve are connected to the active extrusion tubing of the vitrectomy machine. External drainage is performed by actively aspirating subretinal fluid using low active vacuum. The guarded-needle external drainage technique is used in cases with bullous detachments, and small and anterior breaks, when performing scleral buckle, for prevention of underfill when using oil tamponade in cases with choroidal effusion, addressing subretinal gas/air, lysing a subretinal band, draining a suprachoroidal hemorrhage, for diabetic tractional retinal detachments, detachments with no definitive break, and subretinal biopsy in exudative detachments. CONCLUSION: The guarded-needle external drainage has a wide range of applications in vitreoretinal 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".