MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Case Report: Temporary management of delayed postoperative hypotony with Baerveldt tube: Ab Interno stenting using 3-0 nylon suture

2024· preprint· en· W4393222790 on OpenAlexaff
Khaled Ali Elubous, Hady Saheb

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen peer reviewMedicineFibrous jointPlant biologyTube (container)SurgeryAnesthesiaBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background To describe the management of delayed postoperative hypotony and choroidal detachment in a 79-year-old female patient with advanced pseudoexfoliative open-angle glaucoma. Case The patient, refractory to maximal medical therapy, underwent Baerveldt tube implantation with a ripcord using a 4-0 nylon suture. Ripcord removal and the reintroduction of antiglaucoma medication were initiated in response to a hypertensive phase. Delayed postoperative hypotony and choroidal effusions were managed through ab interno stenting of the tube, employing a 3-0 nylon suture. Ab interno stenting of the tube, employing a short segment of 3-0 nylon suture, initially addressed delayed postoperative hypotony and choroidal effusions. However, recurrence of hypotony and choroidal detachment occurred as the short stent descended into the anterior chamber. To manage the recurrent hypotony, Baerveldt tube truncation was performed, along with re-stenting of the tube using a longer 3-0 Nylon ripcord. Conclusions While ab interno occlusion with a short segment of 3-0 nylon suture may offer temporary hypotony control, the risk of segment descent warranted the use of a longer ripcord to enhance efficacy and stability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207