Two-Year Outcomes of Ultrasound Cyclo Plasty as a First Procedure in Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the 2-year outcomes of ultrasound cyclo plasty (UCP) as a first procedure in glaucoma. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with uncontrolled glaucoma who underwent UCP as an initial glaucoma procedure. The main outcome measures were intraocular pressure (IOP), the number of antiglaucoma medications, visual acuity, and the presence of vision-threatening complications. Surgical outcomes of each eye were classified as either complete success, qualified success, or failure based on the main outcome measures. Differences in IOP control and success rates were compared in eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG). RESULTS: We included 98 eyes of 88 patients in the study. The mean follow-up period was 27.25 ± 10.1 months. At 12 and 24 months, mean IOP decreased significantly from 23.16 ± 6.4 mmHg to 16.57 ± 6.0 mmHg and 16.18 ± 5.2 mmHg, respectively, and the number of antiglaucoma medications decreased from 3.27 ± 0.9 to 1.86 ± 1.4 and 1.70 ± 1.7, respectively (p < .01 for all). There were no changes in visual acuity throughout the follow-up compared with preoperative levels. The cumulative probabilities of success were 64.3% (±4.8) [78.9% (±9.4) complete success, and 72.9% (±6.4) qualified success], and 42.9% (±5.0) [52.6% (±11.5) complete success, and 56.3% (±7.2) qualified success] at 12 and 24 months, respectively. The most common complications were cataract development/progression, anterior chamber inflammation, and macular edema. There were no significant differences in IOP, number of antiglaucoma medications, or survival rates between POAG and PACG groups. CONCLUSIONS: UCP can be used as an initial glaucoma procedure for reducing IOP and the number of antiglaucoma medications and offers comparable outcomes in POAG and PACG.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".