Nasolacrimal sac foreign body extraction using vitreoretinal forceps in 28 dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe a novel technique of nasolacrimal foreign body extraction in dogs by using a 20G vitreoretinal forceps introduced through the superior lacrimal punctum. METHODS: A retrospective review of the medical records of dogs with dacryocystitis due to nasolacrimal foreign bodies between the years 2001 and 2022 was performed. We recorded the breed, age, affected eye, type and number of foreign bodies, concomitant diseases, and the use of imaging techniques. All animals underwent the same procedure of a 20G vitreoretinal forceps insertion through the upper canaliculus reaching the lacrimal sac and retrograde extraction of the foreign bodies. RESULTS: A total of 28 dogs were included, 16 males and 12 females, with a mean (±SD) age of 4.7 (±3.2) years. The most common breeds were Wire-Haired Dachshund (4/28; 14.29%) and Labrador Retriever (3/28; 10.71%). Additional imaging techniques were used, such as orbital ultrasound in 13 cases (13/28; 46.43%) and computed tomography in one case (1/28; 3.57%). The most common type of foreign body retrieved was grass awns, although seeds and plant debris were also found. Dacryocystitis resolved after removal of the foreign body and appropriate medical therapy was ensured in all cases in the 1-month postprocedure follow-up. CONCLUSION: Extraction of nasolacrimal foreign bodies with vitreoretinal forceps is a novel, noninvasive, and easily applicable technique that, although not successful in all cases, can be attempted before performing more aggressive surgery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".