Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the results and potential benefit of a banked homologous donor scleral cap over the anterior surface of polyglactin 910 mesh-wrapped porous and nonporous orbital implants during enucleation and secondary orbital implant surgery. METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective, clinical case series of 83 patients who received a polyglactin 910 mesh (Vicryl knitted mesh, undyed, Ethicon, Sommerville, New Jersey, USA) wrapped bioceramic or polymethylmethacrylate orbital implant (sphere or mounded) following enucleation and secondary orbital implant surgery by one surgeon over a 10-year period. A homologous donor scleral cap (approximately 1.5 × 1.5 cm diameter) was also placed over the anterior mesh-wrapped implant surface as an additional barrier. A minimum of 1-year follow up was required to be included in the study. The author analyzed patient demographics, type of surgery, implant type, implant size, follow-up duration, and presence or absence of implant exposure. The data from patients with greater than 1-year follow up are detailed in this report. RESULTS: The author identified 100 patients in his case files that had a scleral cap put in place over their implant. Seventeen patients were either lost to follow up or did not have at least a 1-year follow up, leaving 83 patients (44 enucleations, 39 secondary implants) that were followed for 12 to 120 months (average 60.5 months). There were no cases of implant exposure identified in either group of patients during this time period. CONCLUSIONS: Implant exposure can occur anytime post implant placement with a porous or nonporous orbital implant. This review suggests that a homologous donor scleral cap (approximately 1.5 × 1.5 cm diameter) over the polyglactin 910 mesh-wrapped implant surface may help prevent implant exposure. Patients with porous and nonporous orbital implants should be followed on a long-term basis as exposure can occur at anytime postsurgery, even several years later.
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 | 0.000 | 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".