儿科泪小管裂伤修复中使用Mini Monoka与Masterka单泪管支架的比较

数据集获取（Figshare）

• 源站标题：Pediatric canalicular laceration repair using the Mini Monoka versus Masterka monocanalicular stent
• DOI：10.6084/m9.figshare.19926488.v1
• 发布日期：2022-05-30
• 文件数：3 个
• 文件总体积：1.04 MB
• 源站页面：https://scielo.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Pediatric_canalicular_laceration_repair_using_the_Mini_Monoka_versus_Masterka_monocanalicular_stent/19926488

命令行下载

curl -L -o "d38b8adf9e4500c78e85b20474c71549e052d579.tif" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/35427458"
curl -L -o "5e0e6755ab2873e605a6d998a36436356a5ad2f2.png" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/35427461"
curl -L -o "d20a2e95f43900d3d9d48d30e221eb7a93384a11.jpg" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/35427464"

文件清单

• d38b8adf9e4500c78e85b20474c71549e052d579.tif（694.07 KB）
• 5e0e6755ab2873e605a6d998a36436356a5ad2f2.png（339.55 KB）
• d20a2e95f43900d3d9d48d30e221eb7a93384a11.jpg（6.78 KB）

文件总体积 1.04 MB（源站 API 实测）。

数据加载示例（图像类）

from PIL import Image
import glob, os

files = (glob.glob(os.path.join(path, "**", "*.png"), recursive=True)
       + glob.glob(os.path.join(path, "**", "*.jpg"), recursive=True)
       + glob.glob(os.path.join(path, "**", "*.tif"), recursive=True))
print("图像文件数:", len(files))
img = Image.open(files[0]); print("尺寸/模式:", img.size, img.mode)

# torchvision Dataset 方式:
# from torchvision import datasets
# ds = datasets.ImageFolder(path)  # 要求 子目录=类别

目录组织与标注格式以源站说明和下载后实际文件为准。

数据说明

ABSTRACT Purpose: One of the most important disadvantages of using Mini Monoka stents in pediatric canalicular laceration repair is premature stent loss. In this study, we aimed to compare clinical outcomes between the use of Mini Monoka and Masterka monocanalicular stents in children and discuss the potential causes of premature stent loss. Methods: The medical records of 36 patients who underwent surgical repair of canalicular lacerations were retrospectively reviewed. Children aged <18 years who underwent canalicular laceration repair with either Mini Monoka or Masterka and had at least 6 months of follow-up after stent removal were included in the study. The patients’ demographics, mechanism of injury, type of stent used, premature stent loss, and success rate were analyzed. Success was defined as stent removal without subsequent epiphora and premature stent loss. Results: Twenty-seven children fulfilled our study criteria, and their data were included in the analyses. Mini Monoka was used in 14 patients (51.9%), whereas Masterka was used in 13 patients (48.1%). The preoperative clinical features, including age, sex, and mechanism of injury, were similar between the two groups. The mean age was 8.3 ± 5.5 years in the Mini Monoka group and 7.8 ± 5.9 years in the Masterka group (p=0.61). Three patients in the Mini Monoka group (21.4%) underwent reoperation due to premature stent loss. No premature stent loss was observed in the Masterka group. As a result, the rate of success was 78.6% in the Mini Monoka group, whereas it was 100% in the Masterka group (p=0.22). Conclusions: Even though the two groups did not show any statistically significant difference in success rate, we did not observe any premature stent loss in the Masterka group. Further studies with larger and randomized series are warranted to elaborate on these findings.

许可

CC BY 4.0

引用

学术使用请引用 DOI 10.6084/m9.figshare.19926488.v1（source: https://scielo.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Pediatric_canalicular_laceration_repair_using_the_Mini_Monoka_versus_Masterka_monocanalicular_stent/19926488）。