INFERIOR RETINAL DETACHMENT REPAIR USING VITRECTOMY WITH OR WITHOUT SCLERAL BUCKLING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare outcomes in inferior rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair using pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) or PPV with scleral buckle (PPV-SB). METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery for inferior RRD at a tertiary care center between 2014 and 2018 were included. Inferior RRD was defined as RD with tears between 4:00 and 8:00 clock hours in a detached retina. Non-RRD etiologies (e.g., traumatic, tractional), proliferative vitreoretinopathy grade ≥C2, and silicone oil use were excluded. Single-surgery anatomic success was defined as the absence of reoperation for recurrent RRD during follow-up. RESULTS: There were 366 patients included of which 260 (71%) were operated using PPV-SB. Single-surgery anatomic success was achieved in 96 (91%) of patients with pars plana vitrectomy and 227 (87%) of patients with PPV-SB ( P = 0.38) over a median follow-up of 15 months. At the final follow-up, pinhole visual acuity was 0.18 (0.10-0.30) among patients with pars plana vitrectomy and 0.18 (0.10-0.40) among patients with PPV-SB (Snellen equivalent: 20/30; P = 0.03). After adjusting for demographic (i.e., age and sex) and preoperative characteristics (i.e., macula on status, baseline pinhole visual acuity, and grade C1 proliferative vitreoretinopathy), PPV-SB did not alter single-surgery anatomic success ( P = 0.210). CONCLUSION: Following inferior RRD repair, there were no significant differences in single-surgery anatomic success between patients undergoing pars plana vitrectomy and PPV-SB in this large, retrospective cohort.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".