Epiretinal Membrane Formation following Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Repair: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to investigate the incidence of and risk factors for epiretinal membrane (ERM) formation following primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair. METHODS: This comparative, retrospective, single-center cohort study included eyes with primary RRD treated between 2011 and 2023 at Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts, with pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), scleral buckle (SB), PPV+SB, or pneumatic retinopexy (PnR). Demographic, clinical, and surgical parameters were collected from medical records. The primary outcome was the risk of ERM formation, while the secondary outcome was the risk of ERM requiring surgery. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression were performed, and a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were reported. RESULTS: Overall, 394 eyes were included. The mean age was 58.49 ± 12.8 years, and most patients were male. There was a significantly lower risk of ERM formation following SB compared to PPV in the univariable analysis (HR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.08-0.60, p = 0.003); however, there was no significant association between treatment modality and ERM formation on multivariable Cox regression controlling for confounding factors (p = 0.24). ERM formation was found more commonly in patients who were older (HR = 1.0 per 1 year increase in age, 95% CI = 1.01-1.04, p = 0.001), those with worse baseline visual acuity (HR = 1.3, 95% CI = 1.09-1.71, p = 0.008), and those with macula-off RRDs (HR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.41-3.32, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Surgical modality does not have a significant impact on the risk of ERM following retinal detachment repair. However, age, baseline visual acuity, and macular status are important predictors of ERM formation after RRD repair.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".