Preliminary Results of New Modification of Vertical Muscle Transposition to Enhance Abducting Force in Sixth Nerve Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Since 1907, multiple transposition procedures have been established for the treatment of abducens paralysis. The purpose of the study was to determine where the transposed muscle should be reattached in order to increase the tangential force necessary to improve abduction. Methods: Retrospective case review of 12 consecutive patients with abducens paralysis who underwent transposition procedures between 2016 and 2019 was conducted. Vertical rectus muscles are transposed to the insertion of lateral rectus muscle; the temporal parts are joined and sutured to the sclera on top of the lateral rectus muscle in the middle of the insertion. The nasal parts are sutured to the sclera following the spiral of Tillaux. The muscle junction suture is placed 8 mm from the insertion, with the temporal parts of the vertical muscles bellies joined and sutured to the lateral rectus muscle. A full-tendon transposition was performed on 11 patients, a half-tendon transposition procedure on 1 patient. The minimum follow-up was 3 months. Results: The mean preoperative deviation was ET of 37° (range: ET 24° to ET 51°). The mean preoperative abduction limitation was 5 mm from midline (range: 7 to 1 mm). The postoperative mean deviation was ET of 2° (range: 0° to ET 5°). The postoperative mean abduction improvement was 5 mm past midline (range: 2-6 mm). There were no complications or signs of anterior segment ischemia. Conclusion: To achieve the maximal abductive force from the transposed muscles, we suggest that the vertical muscles be reattached as close as possible to the middle of the lateral rectus insertion.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".