Application of EX-PRESS implants type P-50 in the surgical treatment of open angle glaucoma in pseudophakic eyes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inroduction: To report the efficacy and safety of the EX-PRESS Glaucoma Filtration Device type P-50 in pseudophakic eyes with primary or secondary open angle glaucoma.Material and methods: This retrospective analysis included 36 pseudophakic eyes (14 eyes with primary open angle glaucoma and 22 eyes with secondary open angle glaucoma) after glaucoma surgery with the EX-PRESS type P-50 without mitomycin C. The preoperative and postoperative intraocular pressure (IOP), best corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and topical antiglaucoma medications were evaluated.The postoperative complications and surgical failure were analyzed.The effectiveness of treatment was assessed at the follow-up visit (mean 8.63 months).Surgical success was defined as complete (without antiglaucoma medications) with IOP ≤ 18 mmHg in criterion A and IOP ≤ 14 mmHg in criterion B.Qualified success was determined as the same IOP levels, but with one or two topical antiglaucoma medications.Results: The mean intraocular pressure was 29.98 mmHg (SD = 10.85)before surgery and 13.67 mmHg (SD = 6.19) at the follow-up visit (p < 0.05).The complete success rate was 55.56% in criterion A and 44.44% in criterion B. The qualified success rate was 25.00% in criterion A and 16.67% in criterion B. No serious postoperative complications were observed.Conclusions: This study suggests that the EX-PRESS Glaucoma Filtration Device type P-50 reduces the IOP in most pseudophakic eyes with primary or secondary open angle glaucoma, but the reduction is not always sufficient to reach the target IOP.The use of antiglaucoma medications after EX-PRESS implantation is lowered.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".