RESCUE PNEUMATIC RETINOPEXY FOR RETINAL DETACHMENT IN VITRECTOMIZED EYES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the visual and anatomic outcomes of pneumatic retinopexy (PnR) in vitrectomized eyes. METHODS: This was a retrospective multi-center study evaluating eyes 1) treated with PnR for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) that 2) had a prior history of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for any indication. At least 3 months of follow-up was required. RESULTS: A total of 38 eyes from 38 patients met inclusion criteria. Retinal reattachment after a single PnR was achieved in 71.1% (27/38). The primary anatomic reattachment rate (PARR) was 100% (12/12) for eyes which previously underwent PPV for indications other than RRD, but lower (57.7%; 15/26) for those with a history of RRD repair (p<0.001). Median logMAR VA (Snellen equivalent) improved from 0.74 (20/110) to 0.48 (20/60) at 3 months (p=0.004), 0.44 (20/55) at 6 months (p=0.002), 0.35 (20/45) at 12 months (p=0.007), and 0.30 (20/40) at the final visit (p=0.007). CONCLUSION: PnR may be a useful and less invasive rescue technique to reattach the retina in previously vitrectomized eyes with a RRD, especially in those without prior RRD history.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".