Minimally invasive micro sclerostomy (MIMS) procedure in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Minimally Invasive Micro Sclerotomy (MIMS) procedure in the management of uncontrolled open-angle glaucoma. METHODS: A prospective, open-label, single-arm clinical evaluation with intra-subject comparisons performed at the Ophthalmologic Center after S.V. Malayan, Yerevan, Armenia. Included were adults with primary open-angle glaucoma (OAG) (N = 114) or exfoliative glaucoma (N = 6) who were uncontrolled (IOP > 21) on tolerated topical medication. Mild (N = 7), moderate (N = 66) and severe (n = 47) cases were prospectively included without preselection. Following subconjunctival Mitomycin C, an ab-interno MIMS procedure was performed alone (N = 100) or combined with phacoemulsification (N = 20). Patients were followed for 52 weeks. Procedure-related complications and adverse events were recorded. Success criteria were defined as -5 < IOP ≤ 21mmHg OR a reduction in IOP of ≥ 20% from baseline with (qualified success) or without (complete success) hypotensive medications. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 69 ± 10.1 years. The mean duration of the procedure was 2:01 ± 0:41 min:sec. Scleral drainage channels were achieved in all cases. No device malfunctions, intraoperative complications, or serious adverse events were reported. Iris plugging of the sclerostomy site and early spikes in IOP were the most common adverse events. The only reason for failure was final IOP > 21 mmHg on tolerated medication. At 52 weeks (n = 93), mean IOP decreased by 38% from baseline (P < 0.001), from 27.9 ± 3.7 to 17.5 ± 5.3 mmHg, a difference of 10.5 mmHg (95% CI: -11.7, -9.3). One-year qualified success was documented in 82.1% (95% CI: 72.9%,89.2%) of the patients and complete success, in 70.5% (60.3-79.4%). 60% (95 CI:49.4%,69.9%) of the patients achieved maximum IOP level of 14 mmHg or at least 30% reduction in IOP. CONCLUSIONS: MIMS procedure is a relatively simple, short and safe minimally invasive bleb-forming procedure. Its efficacy, as found in this short-term evaluation, lends it suitable for mild and moderate uncontrolled open-angle glaucoma patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04503590 2019-05-29.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".