Unified Approach to Treating Exogenous Endophthalmitis With Immediate Vitrectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To analyze the outcomes and complications of immediate (within 24 hours) small-gauge (23-gauge, 25-gauge) pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for all causes of exogenous endophthalmitis. Methods: A retrospective case series was evaluated. Results: The study included 107 patients who had immediate PPV for exogenous endophthalmitis between 2016 and 2022. The primary outcome measures were the change from baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) to the final follow-up and the complications after PPV. Causes of exogenous endophthalmitis included intravitreal injections (62.6%), PPV (18.7%), cataract surgery (11.2%), glaucoma surgery (5.6%), and trauma (1.9%). The most common complications were retinal detachment (17.8%) and secondary glaucoma (9.3%). The mean logMAR BCVA improved significantly from the initial diagnosis to the final follow-up (2.26 vs 1.21) ( P < .0001). Conclusions: In most cases, immediate small-gauge vitrectomy for exogenous endophthalmitis leads to an improvement in VA, regardless of the VA at presentation. Patients should be counseled about the potential risks associated with PPV 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".