Outcomes of Scleral Buckling After Failed Pneumatic Retinopexy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the visual and anatomic outcomes of eyes that had secondary scleral buckle (SB) surgery after unsuccessful pneumatic retinopexy (PR) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). Methods: A retrospective study, performed over a 12-year period, comprised patients who had secondary SB procedures after failed primary PR. Clinical parameters (eg, best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA], lens status, macula status, details of RRD and subretinal fluid) were assessed at presentation, before additional procedures, and at follow-up (6 months, 1 year, and last visit). Statistical comparisons were made using Brown-Forsythe and Welch analysis-of-variance tests, with significance levels set at P < .05. Results: Fifty-four eyes with adequate follow-up were included. Forty-four (81.5%) of 54 eyes had successful retinal reattachment with secondary SB alone. The remaining eyes had subsequent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV). Patients presenting with macula-on RRD who had successful secondary SB had no statistically significant change in BCVA from baseline (mean final, 0.23 ± 0.25 logMAR [Snellen 20/34]; P = .999). There was a statistically significant improvement in BCVA in patients presenting with macula-off RRD who had successful secondary SB (mean final, 0.32 ± 0.36 logMAR [20/42]; P < .001 and mean change, −1.06 ± 0.85 logMAR). Ten patients presenting with macula-off RRD who had failed secondary SB had a significant improvement in the final BCVA (mean final, 0.22 ± 0.28 logMAR [20/33]; P = .044), despite the need for an additional PPV to achieve reattachment. Conclusions: Secondary SB remains a good option for RRD repair after unsuccessful PR and may avoid the need for PPV.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".