Outcomes in Recurrent Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Repair: Does Scleral Buckling at Primary or Secondary Surgery Impact Results?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mélanie Hébert, Jérôme Garneau, Sihame Doukkali, Serge Bourgault, Mathieu Caissie, Ãric Tourville, Ali Dirani Department of Ophthalmology, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, CHU de Québec â Université Laval, Quebec City, CanadaCorrespondence: Ali Dirani, Department of Ophthalmology, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050 Ste-Foy Street, Quebec City, QC, G1S 4L8, Canada, Tel +1-418 525-4444, Email drdirani@gmail.comBackground/Objectives: To analyze outcomes in recurrent rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (re-RRD) repair using pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) combined with scleral buckle (SB) at the first or second surgery.Subjects/Methods: Patients with primary uncomplicated RRD at initial presentation who were operated for re-RRD between 2014 and 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study (n = 127). Patients were compared based on first and second surgery sequence: PPV then PPVSB (PPV-PPVSB: n = 51, 40%), or PPVSB then PPV (PPVSB-PPV: n = 76, 60%). Anatomical and functional outcomes were evaluated with second surgery success (2SS) defined as absence of reoperation after the second surgery and final pinhole visual acuity (PHVA) in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), respectively.Results: Mean age at initial presentation was 65.7 years. There were 78 (61%) men and 56 (44%) pseudophakic patients. Median [Q1, Q3] baseline PHVA in logMAR was 0.70 [0.18, 2.30]. SB at first or second surgery did not significantly alter 2SS (PPV-PPVSB: 38, 75% vs PPVSB-PPV: 57, 75%; p = 1.00) or silicone oil use at second surgery (PPV-PPVSB: 18, 35% vs PPVSB-PPV: 36, 47%; p = 0.40). At final follow-up, PHVA did not significantly differ by sequence (p = 0.16).Conclusion: In re-RRD repair, SB at first or second surgery did not alter 2SS and final PHVA.Keywords: rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, recurrent retinal detachment, pars plana vitrectomy, scleral buckle, anatomic success, visual acuity
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".