Performance, safety and efficiency comparison between 10,000 and 5000 cuts per minute vitrectomy using a 25G cutter: a prospective randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the performance of the 25+® UltraVit® 5000 cuts per minute (cpm) vitrectomy probe versus the 25+ ® Ultravit 10,000 cpm® beveled tip, dual drive vitrectomy probe. METHOD: In this prospective randomised controlled clinical trial, 52 eyes of 52 consecutive patients were randomized into either the 10,000 cpm (25 patients) or 5000 cpm vitrectomy group (27 patients). Patients were evaluated preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively on the first day, and at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months. The main outcome measures were vitrectomy time, and secondary endpoints were time to induction of posterior vitreous detachment, intraoperative complications, and number of instruments used. RESULTS: The vitrectomy time was shorter in the 10,000 cpm group (413.7 s) compared to the 5000 cpm group (463.4 s), although there was no significant difference (p = 0.5999). One patient had an iatrogenic retinal break in the 10,000 cpm group while two patients had an iatrogenic retinal break in the 5000 cpm group. The time for posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) induction and the number of instruments used were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The difference in vitrectomy times between the 10,000 cpm vitrectomy probe and the 5000 cpm cutter were not statistically significant. This may suggest that other factors affect efficiency rather than the limitations of equipment.
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".