ライフサイエンスコーパス: PPV

1 PPV associated with membrane peel, laser photocoagulatio

2 PPV associated with retinectomy, laser photocoagulation

3 PPV under melphalan irrigation, with retinectomy, if nec

4 PPV was significantly reduced for indeterminate uptake a

5 PPV, NPV, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 0.8

6 tly higher positive predictive value (90.0%, PPV) than QFT (96.5% specificity, 50.7% PPV) and TST (96

7 because it yields 100% specificity and 100% PPV for malignant nodule, 97.5% sensitivity for the dete

8 Cutoffs with 100% PPV for positive HIPA were >3.0 U/mL (HemosIL-AcuStar-HI

9 measures of psychotic experiences at age 18 (PPVs, 2.9% and 10.0%, respectively), was improved by inc

10 and 92.5% (95% CI 86.4-96.5%) for grader 2 (PPV 68%), using mydriatic imaging, after including ungra

11 sensitivity of 69.8%, specificity of 81.2%, PPV of 34.6%, and NPV of 95.2% for PCP.

12 aphy was 50%, average specificity was 82.2%, PPV was 94%, and NPV 23.2%.

13 In 2008, PPV without ILM peel represented 70% of ERM procedures,

14 d in 155 of 169 SB cases (91.7%), 207 of 249 PPV cases (83.1%), and 271 of 297 PPV/SB cases (91.2%).

15 Micro-incision 25G + PPV does not affect the osmolarity of the tear film.

16 All patients underwent 25G + PPV surgery due to a disorder of the vitreomacular inter

17 207 of 249 PPV cases (83.1%), and 271 of 297 PPV/SB cases (91.2%).

18 mined using a probability equivalent to a 3% PPV NICE guidelines level.

19 primary tumour (mean NPV 85.0% (84.6-85.3), PPV 85.0% (82.5-92.3), accuracy 84.9% (84.2-86.0)) and n

20 50.7% PPV) and TST (96.8% specificity, 45.4% PPV).

21 sensitivity of 97.86%, specificity of 59.4%, PPV - 74.76%, NPV - 95.76%.

22 cohort (specificity 0.99, sensitivity 0.44, PPV 0.89, NPV 0.87) and a diagnostic odds-ratio (DOR) of

23 d nodal outcome (mean NPV 85.6% (84.1-86.6), PPV 94.7% (93.8-95.1), accuracy 86.8% (85.6-88.0)).

24 th a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 67%, PPV of 63% and NPV of 87%.

25 .0%, PPV) than QFT (96.5% specificity, 50.7% PPV) and TST (96.8% specificity, 45.4% PPV).

26 ow-risk (99% sensitivity) and high-risk (75% PPV), and performance at these thresholds was compared i

27 ositive" diagnosis), and an accuracy of 78%, PPV of 76% and NPV of 81% for the diagnosis of EDP vs EL

28 o intravitreal injections (35 eyes [14.8%]), PPV (29 eyes [12.2%]), and other intraocular surgeries (

29 difference, 26.8%; 95% CI, 17.6% to 35.9%]), PPV (prostate cancer: 95.7% vs 91.9% [difference, 3.8%;

30 tive values (NPV); the Nugent scores had 93% PPV but poor NPV (57%).

31 nderwent an SB and 21,131 patients (87.8%) a PPV +/- SB.

32 release assays in the same cohort achieved a PPV of 5.6% (95% CI, 2.1-11.8).

33 ow-up of 346 days, this signature achieved a PPV of 50% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.7-84.3) and

34 The IOP increased with 3.0 mmHg after a PPV with indication retinal detachment (p < 0.001), but

35 cutively positive ctHPVDNA blood tests had a PPV of 94% (95% CI, 70% to 99%).

36 nfirmed in 49/52 individuals, resulting in a PPV of 94% (95%CI: 84-98%).

37 es the literature data according to achieved PPV and BI-RADS percentage distribution.

38 While many synthetic methods afford PPVs with all-trans stereochemistry, very few deliver th

39 The IOP should be monitored carefully after PPV, since there may be a higher risk of secondary glauc

40 cantly decreased risk of undergoing CE after PPV surgery compared with eyes of patients without diabe

41 entral/paracentral visual field defect after PPV for RRD repair.

42 (91.2%) underwent cataract extraction after PPV at a mean duration of 32.7+/-38.5 months (range, 2-1

43 the 6 months after the first injection after PPV (n = 47) was 4.94 +/- 1.89 and 2.76 +/- 2.44, respec

44 Fifteen months after PPV, BCVA had increased to 20/32 without recurrence of R

45 Twenty months after PPV, BCVA was 20/20 and there was no sign of tumor recur

46 Nine patients reported visual scotomas after PPV for RRD from January 2013 to December 2018 with inci

47 hment (p < 0.001), but remained stable after PPV for epiretinal membrane (p = 0.555), macular hole (p

48 with long-term silicone oil tamponade after PPV to treat retinal detachment, IOP increased significa

49 ery continued during the first 3 years after PPV and was maintained thereafter in a substantial fract

50 Although PPV with SF6 gas tamponade was successful, almost half o

51 y was 98% (95% CI: 97%, 99%; 130 of 132) and PPV was 36% (95% CI: 35%, 37%; 130 of 366).

52 nce interval [CI]: 80%, 82%; 190 of 234) and PPV was 36% (95% CI: 35%, 37%; 190 of 530).

53 ean final VA was similar for PPV (20/47) and PPV-SB (20/46; P = 0.805).

54 ensitivity for all 4 algorithms was 79%, and PPV was 92%-93%.

55 V; 15 patients), combined scleral buckle and PPV (4 patients), pneumatic retinopexy (3 patients), and

56 Scleral buckle and PPV/SB were superior to PPV for SSAS (P = 0.0041).

57 tients with PSA levels < 1 ng/mL, the DR and PPV were 69% and 85%, respectively, resulting in a CDR o

58 tients with PSA levels >= 1 ng/mL the DR and PPV were 90% and 91%, respectively, resulting in a CDR o

59 vity of 40%, specificity of 54%, and NPV and PPV of 44% and 50%, respectively.

60 is combined classification delivered NPV and PPV of 89% and 100%, respectively, and all iPET+ patient

61 DeltaSUV cutoff reported previously, NPV and PPV were 80% and 76%, respectively.

62 tive and positive predictive values (NPV and PPV) of 82% and 93%, respectively.

63 e sensitivity and high specificity, NPV, and PPV for pulmonary IMI after HCT, particularly for non-As

64 PPV/SB, SB had the best visual outcomes, and PPV had the worst SSAS outcomes.

65 nner retinal fenestration (18 patients), and PPV plus autologous platelet concentrate (22 patients).

66 strated positive publication bias in PPV and PPV plus JPL groups.

67 rence standard for cancer detection rate and PPV; interval cancers reported until the next annual scr

68 The real-life CDR, recall rate, and PPV of outliers were compared against other readers (non

69 sensitivity (87% and 85%, respectively) and PPV (80% and 82%, respectively) combinations.

70 f primary RRD cases repaired by PPV, SB, and PPV/SB from which cohort studies of moderately complex R

71 Sensitivity and PPV for the detection of ground-glass opacities (GGOs) w

72 locations with sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of 69% (25 of 36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 51%,

73 prostate bed, sensitivity, specificity, and PPV were 57% (13 of 23; 95% CI: 32%, 81%), 86% (18 of 21

74 Combined TDSRF and PPV appears to be more effective in controlling the dise

75 one than in those who had combined TDSRF and PPV in the long term.

76 natomical success rate of combined TDSRF and PPV was higher than that of TDSRF alone (93.8% vs 75%, r

77 and 15 patients underwent combined TDSRF and PPV.

78 Pars plana vitrectomy and PPV-SB as the first procedure were performed on 684 eyes

79 BSIS real-life CDRs, recall rates, and PPVs showed positive correlations with the equivalent PE

80 here was a significantly longer time between PPV and CE in patients with diabetes (537 days; 95% CI,

81 r vitrectomy with or without scleral buckle (PPV+/-SB) between 2013 and 2016.

82 vitrectomy (PPV) or PPV with scleral buckle (PPV-SB).

83 peel represented 70% of ERM procedures, but PPV with ILM peeling accounted for 52% and 70% of ERM pr

84 We report here the successful management by PPV under melphalan irrigation of 2 children presenting

85 ed database of primary RRD cases repaired by PPV, SB, and PPV/SB from which cohort studies of moderat

86 All-cis PPVs can then serve as light-responsive polymers through

87 We report herein a synthesis of all-cis PPVs with living characteristics via stereoretentive rin

88 ctively; for 6-mm-threshold CT colonography, PPVs were 76.8%, 44.3%, and 2.7%; for 10-mm-threshold CT

89 d 2.7%; for 10-mm-threshold CT colonography, PPVs were 84.5%, 75.2%, and 5.2%, respectively (P < .001

90 y (PPV), scleral buckling (SB), and combined PPV/SB for primary RRD in 2015 from 5 large retina group

91 Despite substantial ocular comorbidities, PPV can result in retinal reattachment in even the most

92 ating information on frequency and distress (PPVs, 13.3% and 20.0%, respectively), although sensitivi

93 lls/uL had transient, self-limiting DNAemia (PPV 1.0, NPV 0.86).

94 Overall, early PPV was used within the first week of presentation in 17

95 < 5X depth of sequencing, but have excellent PPV.

96 a different surgical technique in each eye, PPV plus SB yielded a higher SOAS of 89.7% compared with

97 higher SOAS of 89.7% compared with 69.0% for PPV alone in 116 eyes (P = 0.010).

98 The SSAS was 84.2% for PPV, 91.2% for SB, and 90.2% for PPV/SB.

99 s 84.2% for PPV, 91.2% for SB, and 90.2% for PPV/SB.

100 84% (577/684) for PPV and 92% (193/209) for PPV-SB.

101 peration rate was 12.2% for SB and 11.6% for PPV +/- SB.

102 rgery anatomic success was 84% (577/684) for PPV and 92% (193/209) for PPV-SB.

103 .8%) versus 96.5% (95% CI, 94.5%, 97.8%) for PPV, and 80.9% (95% CI, 76.0%, 85.1%) versus 65.8% (95%

104 gle surgery anatomic success was greater for PPV-SB than PPV for inferior (96% vs. 82%) and superior

105 The indications for PPV, which was performed on average of 15 days after inj

106 Mean final VA was similar for PPV (20/47) and PPV-SB (20/46; P = 0.805).

107 ported visual scotomas after 23- or 25-gauge PPV (Constellation Vision System, Alcon, Fort Worth, Tex

108 t change in VA in patients who opted to have PPV to treat their IMT type 2 and FTMH compared with tho

109 during post-treatment surveillance has high PPV and NPV for identifying disease recurrence in patien

110 onclusion: (18)F-rhPSMA-7 PET/CT offers high PPV in BCR after RP.

111 TSPOT's higher PPV may make it preferable for testing U.S.-born PLWH at

112 (18)F-DCFPyL to multiparametric MRI improved PPV by 38% overall (P = .02) and by 30% (P = .09) in the

113 ts demonstrated positive publication bias in PPV and PPV plus JPL groups.

114 There was no significant difference in PPV for CRC or advanced adenoma in warfarin users compar

115 is, factors associated with RD after initial PPV were preoperative subretinal hemorrhage (odds ratio

116 [OR], 5.73; P = 0.03), PVR found at initial PPV (OR, 11.94; P = 0.021), and retinectomy (OR, 17.88;

117 t 1 foot were more likely to undergo initial PPV.

118 96.6% (845/875) (95% CI, 95.1 to 97.7%), its PPV was 45.5% (95% CI, 32.0 to 59.4%), and its NPV was 9

119 %, 81%; 184 of 234), respectively, and lower PPVs of 29% (95% CI: 28%, 30%; 171 of 581), 26% (95% CI:

120 wer than the nonoutlier group who had a mean PPV of 0.17% (P = .006).

121 for indeterminate uptake across all IC (mean PPV primary tumour 36%, nodes 48%).

122 polymers, comprising alternating BT and MEH-PPV units, are achieved in molecular weights exceeding 2

123 state-of-the-art logistic regression model (PPV of 17% [SD: 0.06]) and the baseline rate of 11.1% [S

124 treatment is much less with the addition of PPV.

125 Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of PPV without or with adjunctive procedures.

126 The applicability of PPV is higher in the operating room setting, where fluid

127 where fluid strategies made on the basis of PPV improve postoperative outcomes.

128 were electronically queried for all cases of PPV for retinal detachment performed between January 1,

129 All cases of PPV for rhegmatogenous or tractional retinal detachment

130 e historic perspective of the development of PPV and its applications from its introduction to its cu

131 The odds of reoperation of PPV +/- SB compared with SB only varies depending on the

132 bolites were associated with higher risks of PPV use, while metabolites from the plasmalogen subpathw

133 tes that are associated with higher risks of PPV.

134 rately complex primary RRDs in this study of PPV versus SB versus PPV/SB, SB had the best visual outc

135 ry from decade to decade as the technique of PPV evolved and became applicable to more indications.

136 At the time of PPV, substantial comorbidities were noted, including cor

137 The increasing use of PPV with ILM peeling to address ERM removal is associate

138 The 100 most-cited articles on PPV were published in 11 different ophthalmology journal

139 to PPV plus IVB ([study group] 102 eyes) or PPV plus sham ([control] 112 eyes).

140 phakic patients with RRD managed with PPV or PPV-SB were analyzed for anatomic and visual outcomes.

141 ificantly better visual outcomes than PPV or PPV/SB even after controlling for cataract (cases with m

142 treated with pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) or PPV with scleral buckle (PPV-SB).

143 phakic primary RRD treated with SB, PPV, or PPV/SB to review anatomic and visual outcomes.

144 na vitrectomy (PPV), scleral buckle (SB), or PPV plus SB over an 11-year period (October 2008-April 2

145 e (sensitivity, positive predictive value or PPV, and computational efficiency) of different metageno

146 For specific codes, the overall PPV, NPV, sensitivity, and specificity for nonproliferat

147 8.8% to 100%), and ruled in 18% of patients (PPV: 76.8%; 95% CI: 67.2% to 84.7%).

148 pillary laser treatment (JPL; 146 patients), PPV plus internal limiting membrane peeling (ILMP; 50 pa

149 ), PPV plus both ILMP and JPL (16 patients), PPV plus inner retinal fenestration (18 patients), and P

150 miting membrane peeling (ILMP; 50 patients), PPV plus both ILMP and JPL (16 patients), PPV plus inner

151 eported techniques: PPV alone (92 patients), PPV plus juxtapapillary laser treatment (JPL; 146 patien

152 sitive predictive value of biopsy performed (PPV(3)), and negative predictive value were determined.R

153 ted with a higher probability for performing PPV.

154 alone versus combined scleral buckling plus PPV (SB+PPV).

155 Scleral buckling plus PPV resulted in greater SOAS outcomes than PPV alone for

156 Scleral buckling plus PPV showed greater SOAS than PPV alone in phakic eyes (P

157 % underwent encircling scleral buckling plus PPV, 18.8% underwent repeat PPV, and 6.2% underwent scle

158 rate of success than SB or combined SB plus PPV.

159 alues with 100% negative (NPV) and positive (PPV) predictive values for a positive gold standard func

160 The hazard ratio for post-PPV CE was lower among patients with diabetes (3.307; 95

161 . type 2) did not influence the rate of post-PPV cataract surgery.

162 a vitrectomy (PPV), or SB combined with PPV (PPV/SB).

163 Patients who had previous PPV were excluded.

164 Primary PPV showed a lower rate of success than SB or combined S

165 nificantly lower among patients who received PPV with ILM peel (0.88%) compared with patients without

166 ne patients with idiopathic ERM who received PPV with or without ILM peel between 2008 and 2016, and

167 6.2% underwent scleral buckling plus repeat PPV.

168 al buckling plus PPV, 18.8% underwent repeat PPV, and 6.2% underwent scleral buckling plus repeat PPV

169 Poly(p-phenylenevinylene)s (PPVs), a staple of the conductive polymer family, consis

170 ith primary RRD repaired via PPV alone or SB+PPV and gas tamponade.

171 ersus combined scleral buckling plus PPV (SB+PPV).

172 ompared with 345 of 374 eyes (92.2%) with SB+PPV (P = 0.0010).

173 es achieved greater surgical success with SB+PPV, whereas eyes with a PCIOL achieved similar results

174 complex phakic primary RRD treated with SB, PPV, or PPV/SB to review anatomic and visual outcomes.

175 The mean real-life screening PPV of PERFORMS outliers was 0.14% and was significantly

176 ive value of abnormal findings at screening (PPV(1)), positive predictive value of biopsy performed (

177 lex Collection of ASD families shows similar PPVs.

178 uivalent or higher sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPVs, and accuracy than culture to Gram stain.

179 Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV at the optimal cutoffs for each classifier

180 e identified 6 commonly reported techniques: PPV alone (92 patients), PPV plus juxtapapillary laser t

181 s PPV resulted in greater SOAS outcomes than PPV alone for primary RRD repair.

182 ad significantly better visual outcomes than PPV or PPV/SB even after controlling for cataract (cases

183 anatomic success was greater for PPV-SB than PPV for inferior (96% vs. 82%) and superior (90% vs. 82%

184 l buckling plus PPV showed greater SOAS than PPV alone in phakic eyes (P < 0.0001), but not in eyes w

185 SB yielded a significantly higher SOAS than PPV or SB alone.

186 Several studies showed that PPV accurately predicts fluid responsiveness when patien

187 The PPV for CRC was 3.8% for aspirin users vs 6.4% for match

188 The PPV group had no significant change in VA between the pr

189 The PPV in the histopathology-proven cohort was 91%, and the

190 The PPV of an at-risk mental state at age 18 predicting inci

191 The PPV of CSC diagnosis as a predictor of OSA was highest i

192 The PPV was defined as the proportion of patients who had tr

193 s 6.4% for matched non-users (P = .006), The PPV for advanced adenoma in aspirin users was 27.2% vs 3

194 ty and specificity were 73.4% and 70.7%, the PPV and NPVs were 86.5% and 51.0%, and overall accuracy

195 , the sensitivity increased to 97.5% and the PPV decreased to 83.3%.

196 % CI, 8.7%-11.8%) with DBT (P = .02) and the PPV was 19.6% (95% CI, 13.2%-28.2%) vs 31.0% (95% CI, 17

197 On a per-patient basis, the PPV of (18)F-rhPSMA-7 PET/CT in the composite cohort was

198 stment for age and initial RD diagnosis, the PPV +/- SB group exhibited a lower odds of reoperation w

199 ch which we show to successfully improve the PPV of a mapping based technique while retaining improve

200 bined method also significantly improved the PPV when tested on five human alleles, including some wi

201 c tests in a two-test algorithm improves the PPV, compared with the individual assays alone, while ma

202 There were 12 eyes in the PPV group and 26 eyes in the MM group.

203 neovascularization developed in 1 eye in the PPV group and 5 eyes in the MM group.

204 up and $7108 and $4514, respectively, in the PPV group.

205 ans improved by 1 step in 10 patients in the PPV group.

206 Overall, an average increase of 10% in the PPV was found over the standalone sequence-based method.

207 According to search method, the PPV for individuals identified by SNOMED codes was 100%

208 sion at each follow-up interval, compared to PPV while being less likely to gain 2 lines or more of v

209 (214 eyes) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to PPV plus IVB ([study group] 102 eyes) or PPV plus sham (

210 Scleral buckle and PPV/SB were superior to PPV for SSAS (P = 0.0041).

211 Eyes with findings that would bias toward PPV (vitreous hemorrhage, dense cataract, proliferative

212 o RD configuration or other RD repair types (PPV only vs PPV with SB).

213 ow-up) at the POD1 visit after uncomplicated PPV for retinal detachment.

214 scans were obtained in 3 patients undergoing PPV with gas-fluid exchange (SF(6) or C(3)F(8)).

215 patients >=18 years of age who had undergone PPV.

216 %) underwent SB, 1200 eyes (51.4%) underwent PPV, and 815 eyes (34.9%) underwent PPV/SB.

217 nderwent PPV, and 815 eyes (34.9%) underwent PPV/SB.

218 ne eyes of 61 consecutive patients underwent PPV after sustaining OGI.

219 review of consecutive patients who underwent PPV after OGI between March 1, 2011, and August 1, 2017,

220 the records of 22 146 patients who underwent PPV performed by 2705 retina physicians.

221 In persons with diabetes who underwent PPV, we observed a trend for a lower HR of cataract surg

222 lue (NPV) (100%), positive predictive value (PPV) (63.5%), and area under the curve of receiver opera

223 n sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) at a 50% confidence threshold.

224 n a sibling has a positive predictive value (PPV) for ASD or atypical development of 0.83; the Simons

225 assays), and the positive predictive value (PPV) improved substantially, with a minimal effect on th

226 egative (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) occurred when iPET was defined as positive if Deauv

227 e value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) occurred when iPET was defined as positive if the D

228 specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of (18)F-DCFPyL PET/CT based on histologic analysis

229 SCARF1 achieved a positive predictive value (PPV) of 23% for progression to active tuberculosis withi

230 ecificity of 58%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 57% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 86%.

231 high risk with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 76.8% (95% CI: 68.9% to 83.6%).

232 accuracy of 98%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 86% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 99% w

233 ndation rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy, using invasive cancer and ductal carcino

234 e value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) of ctHPVDNA surveillance.

235 of endoscopy and positive predictive value (PPV) of endoscopic features for a CR were calculated.

236 n increase in the positive predictive value (PPV) of the peptides correctly predicted to bind very st

237 We estimated the positive predictive value (PPV) that a new diagnosis of CSC would have in predictin

238 e specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were 100%.

239 recall rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for each reader, for both real-life

240 ble readings, and positive predictive value (PPV) were reported.

241 %) and up to 100% positive predictive value (PPV) with estimated negative predictive values (NPV) of

242 CI, 91% to 94%); positive predictive value (PPV), 89% (95% CI, 86% to 91%); negative predictive valu

243 ection rate (DR), positive predictive value (PPV), and correct detection rate (CDR) of (18)F-rhPSMA-7

244 ity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for the rectal

245 ity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of CryptoPS we

246 ity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of STs for met

247 ity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were also dete

248 ity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculate

249 ity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculate

250 ity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).

251 ity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).

252 ity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy) were co

253 ity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and positive and

254 Positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, spec

255 y in terms of the positive predictive value (PPV), which indicated the confidence of novel discovery.

256 ecificity: 72.4%; Positive predictive value (PPV): 50%; Negative predictive value (NPV): 95.5%).

257 8%) for grader 1 (positive predictive value [PPV] 59.1%) and 92.5% (95% CI 86.4-96.5%) for grader 2 (

258 t, with both 90% positive predictive values (PPV) and 74% negative predictive values (NPV); the Nugen

259 ly, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of 93.8% and 65.1%, and an accuracy of 82.2.

260 Positive predictive values (PPVs) for any neoplasm 6 mm or greater, advanced neoplas

261 ic modeling, and positive predictive values (PPVs), sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curv

262 y RRDs in this study of PPV versus SB versus PPV/SB, SB had the best visual outcomes, and PPV had the

263 utive patients with primary RRD repaired via PPV alone or SB+PPV and gas tamponade.

264 nt (RRD) repair using pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) alone versus combined scleral buckling plus PPV (SB

265 Previous pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) had been performed in 3 eyes (1 for RD, 2 for ERM).

266 r micro-incision 25G+ pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) in a prospective study.

267 Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) in eyes with history of retinoblastoma has been ass

268 nt (RRD) treated with pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) or PPV with scleral buckle (PPV-SB).

269 of patients underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), 50% underwent encircling scleral buckling plus PPV

270 ne oil tamponade after par plana vitrectomy (PPV), and to compare the outcomes of different silicone

271 al treatment involves pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), often combined with adjunctive procedures.

272 scleral buckle (SB), pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), or SB combined with PPV (PPV/SB).

273 eral RRD treated with pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), scleral buckle (SB), or PPV plus SB over an 11-yea

274 l patients undergoing pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), scleral buckling (SB), and combined PPV/SB for pri

275 action (CE) following pars plana vitrectomy (PPV).

276 r RRD repair included pars plana vitrectomy (PPV; 15 patients), combined scleral buckle and PPV (4 pa

277 atic retinopexy [PR], pars plana vitrectomy [PPV], laser barricade, or scleral buckle [SB]) were coll

278 ed from changes in posterior partial volume (PPV).

279 ration or other RD repair types (PPV only vs PPV with SB).

280 rresponding figures for cytologic LSILs were PPV, 39.2% (37.4%-41.1%); NPV, 96.4% (78.9%-99.5%); sens

281 was achieved in 90 of 111 eyes (81.1%) with PPV alone compared with 345 of 374 eyes (92.2%) with SB+

282 went initial mechanical vitreous biopsy with PPV had worse VA at presentation (P = 0.024) and at last

283 of eyes, and mechanical vitreous biopsy with PPV in 14% of eyes.

284 eous tap and mechanical vitreous biopsy with PPV were more likely to yield culture growth compared wi

285 underwent TDSRF alone or in combination with PPV.

286 plana vitrectomy (PPV), or SB combined with PPV (PPV/SB).

287 n patients treated with PPV-SB compared with PPV alone, whereas visual outcomes were similar for both

288 us tap required subsequent intervention with PPV.

289 Pseudophakic patients with RRD managed with PPV or PPV-SB were analyzed for anatomic and visual outc

290 Patients <=50 years old with PPV +/- SB exhibited a higher odds of reoperation (OR 1.

291 inal vascular abnormalities in patients with PPV.

292 t low coverage depths, but can struggle with PPV.

293 la-on RRD, SSAS was 88% in eyes treated with PPV and 100% in eyes treated with PPV-SB (P = 0.0088).

294 a-off RRD, SSAS was 81% in eyes treated with PPV and 89% in eyes treated with PPV-SB (P = 0.029).

295 eated with PPV and 100% in eyes treated with PPV-SB (P = 0.0088).

296 reated with PPV and 89% in eyes treated with PPV-SB (P = 0.029).

297 Ds, SSAS was better in patients treated with PPV-SB compared with PPV alone, whereas visual outcomes

298 (1) more than 2 patients, (2) treatment with PPV, and (3) reporting of preoperative and postoperative

299 ssociation of GNA11 pathogenic variants with PPV and allied disorders, these observations may suggest

300 Patients >50 years with PPV +/- SB had a lower odds of reoperation (OR 0.73, 95%