ArticlePloS one2019
Do the primary surgical options for basic-type exotropia cause differences in distance-near discrepancy of recurrent exotropia after surgery?
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing lateral rectus recession and bupivacaine injection of medial rectus with conventional recession-resection in moderate-angle intermittent exotropia.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- How to Better Treat Patients with Intermittent Exotropia: A Review of Surgical Treatment of Intermittent Exotropia.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2022Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMost ophthalmologists appear to have no distinct preference between unilateral recess-resect (R&R) and bilateral lateral rectus (BLR) recessions to treat basic-type exotropia. This study aimed to determine whether differences in distance-near discrepancy and resultant exotropia types of recurrent exotropia following surgery for primary basic-type exotropia exist between the two surgical options.
methodsNinety-three patients with recurrent exotropia following BLR recessions for basic-type exotropia (BLR group) and 95 following R&R for basic-type exotropia (R&R group) were included in this retrospective study. The exotropia types in recurrent exotropia were classified into three types according to distance-near discrepancy: basic, divergence-excess, and convergence-insufficiency. The BLR and R&R groups were compared.
resultsAfter surgery for basic-type exotropia, the type composition changed differently in each group (p < 0.001). The basic-type of primary exotropia was more often maintained in recurrent exotropia in the R&R group than in the BLR group. The incidence of postoperative convergence-insufficiency type exotropia in the BLR group was 28.0% and 8.4% in the R&R group (p = 0.001). Postoperative near stereopsis and fusion control grade of distance deviation did not differ between the two groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionsConvergence-insufficiency type recurrent exotropia occurred more frequently after BLR recessions than after R&R for basic-type exotropia. The high rate of secondary convergence-insufficiency type exotropia after BLR recessions should be considered when clinicians select a surgical option to treat exotropia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.