Five-Year Outcomes of Graft-Free Tube Shunts and Risk Factors for Tube Exposures in Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRÉCIS: Use of a scleral tunnel technique instead of a patch graft can be considered in most cases of tube shunt implantation. Grafts may still be considered in younger (<65 y old) East Asians. PURPOSE: (1) To assess the risk factors for tube exposure with a graft-free implantation technique and (2) to examine 5-year outcomes of graft-free tube shunt insertion. METHODS: This was a retrospective case series of 204 consecutive eyes undergoing a glaucoma tube shunt implantation with a scleral tunnel technique in lieu of a graft. Preoperative and postoperative best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure, and number of glaucoma medications were compared. Failure was defined as the following: (1) intraocular pressure >21 mm Hg or ≤5 mm Hg on 2 consecutive visits after 3 mo; (2) required additional glaucoma surgery; (3) loss of light perception. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to identify risk factors of tube exposures. RESULTS: Intraocular pressure and the number of glaucoma medications were significantly decreased at all postoperative time points ( P <0.001). Success rates were 91% at year 1, 75% at year 3, and 67% at year 5. The most common early (<3 mo) complication was tube malpositioning. The most common late (>3 mo to 5 y) complications were corneal complications and uncontrolled intraocular pressure. By year 5, 6.9% of tubes were exposed. Multivariable regression showed that age less than 65 years old (odds ratio: 3.66, P =0.04) and East Asian ethnicity (odds ratio: 3.36, P =0.04) were associated with significantly increased risk of tube exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Graft-free glaucoma tube implantation has comparable long-term outcomes and complication rates to shunts with a graft. Younger (<65 y old) East Asians are at greater risk of tube exposure without a graft.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".