ArticleInternational ophthalmology2020
Why bilateral medial rectus recession fails? Factors associated with early repeated surgery.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Esotropia and Exotropia Preferred Practice Pattern®.Ophthalmology · 2023Guideline
- Development and Validation of a Nomogram for Predicting Second Surgery in Patients with Concomitant Esotropia.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2022Article
- Surgical success of lateral rectus resection for residual and recurrent esotropia.International ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Infantile Esoropia: Management results and prognostic factors.La Tunisie medicaleArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo explore the risk factors for failure of bilateral medial rectus muscle recession (BMR) for esotropia.
methodsWe reviewed 171 consecutive patients with esotropia who underwent bilateral medial rectus muscle recession as a primary procedure from January 2009 to December 2011. Patients with infantile, partially accommodative and acquired esotropia were included. We compared patients who required more than one surgery to patients who only had one operation.
resultsA total of 171 patients (89 males, 52%, mean age 5.1 ± 6.0 years, range 0.4-51 years) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and comprised the study population. Mean follow-up period was 17.4 ± 15.5 months (range 1-65 months). A second strabismus surgery was performed in 17 (9.9%) cases within a mean time of 11.7 ± 9.2 months (range 0.4-27.7 months) from the initial surgery. Univariate analysis demonstrated that in patients younger than 1 year the odds ratio (OR) of failure was 4.00 (95% CI 1.12-14.35, p = 0.033) and for patients older than 7 years the OR of surgical failure was 3.27 (95% CI 1.10-9.76, p = 0.033). In addition, patients with esotropia > 60 prism diopters (PD) had a trend towards needing further surgery (OR = 3.91, 95% CI 0.93-16.44, p = 0.063). A multivariate model of regression revealed that age and angle of esotropia > 60 PD remained significant risk factors for requiring additional surgeries.
conclusionsIn our cohort of patients who underwent BMR for esotropia, a large angle of esotropia and age were associated with failure of surgery and need for reoperation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31385144What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.