Risk factors, complications, and outcomes of phacoemulsification cataract surgery complicated by retained lens fragments in Asian eyes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the risk factors, visual outcomes, and sequelae of phacoemulsification surgery complicated by retained lens fragments (RLFs). METHODS: This single-center case–control study enrolled consecutive eyes complicated by RLF and compared them to age- and gender-matched uneventful cataract surgery cases at a tertiary care teaching hospital. Biometric, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected. The primary outcome measures were risk factors, visual outcomes, and rate of postoperative complications. RESULTS: The study and control groups included 282 and 289 eyes, respectively. The estimated incidence of RLF was 1.47% during the study. We found a statistically higher risk of RLF among diabetics ( P < 0.001), those with a history of intravitreal injections ( P = 0.001), eyes with dense nuclear sclerosis, anterior capsular cataract ( P < 0.001), and posterior polar cataract ( P = 0.01). There was a statistically higher risk of RLF in eyes with a higher mean preoperative visual acuity (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) ( P < 0.001) and in cases performed by trainees ( P < 0.001). Most eyes in the RLF group ( n = 207, 73.4%) retained their preoperative vision or experienced a one-line improvement in visual acuity and 14 eyes (5.3%) experienced more than one-line improvement in vision. CONCLUSION: Although RLFs are rare, they can affect the quality of postoperative vision and outcomes of complicated phacoemulsification 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".