Superior oblique tuck - effectiveness in reducing vertical deviations when performed as a primary versus secondary procedure in superior oblique paresis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To quantify the effectiveness of superior oblique tuck (SOT) surgery in patients with a hyperdeviation secondary to superior oblique paresis (SOP). Surgical outcomes were compared in patients undergoing SOT surgery as a primary procedure with those who had previously undergone ipsilateral inferior oblique weakening surgery. Methods This retrospective study assessed surgical outcomes from all patients undergoing SOT surgery for SOP between 2012 and 2021 across 2 hospitals. The effectiveness of SOT surgery in reducing the hyperdeviation was assessed in the primary position (PP) and in contralateral elevation and depression. Results were compared between those undergoing primary SOT surgery with those who had previously undergone ipsilateral inferior oblique weakening surgery. Results A total of 60 SOT procedures were performed between 2012 and 2021. 7 were removed due to incomplete data. The remaining 53 cases experienced a mean reduction in hyperdeviation of 6.5 prism dioptres (PD), 6.7PD and 12.0PD in the PP, contralateral elevation and contralateral depression respectively. In eyes with previous IO weakening, the reduction of hyperdeviation was larger than in those eyes with no previous IO weakening surgery, with mean reductions of 8.0PD vs 5.2PD, 7.4PD vs 6.2PD and 12.4PD vs 11.6PD in the PP, contralateral elevation and contralateral depression respectively. Conclusion SOT surgery is a safe and effective procedure with high patient satisfaction and resolution of symptoms in those patients with troublesome diplopia in downgaze secondary to SOP. This is true in both unoperated eyes and in those who have previously undergone inferior oblique weakening 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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".