ArticleBMC ophthalmology2022
Surgical outcomes of adjustment on recessed lateral rectus muscle versus resected medial rectus muscle for intermittent exotropia.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the effectiveness of resected muscle adjustment compared with the recessed muscle adjustment in patients with intermittent exotropia.
methodsThis retrospective clinical investigation analyzed the data of patients who underwent strabismus surgery with adjustment. Patients who were followed-up for at least one and half year after adjustment were enrolled. They were divided into two groups; patients who underwent adjustment on recessed lateral rectus muscle (LR-Adj group) and adjustment on resected medial rectus muscle (MR-Adj group). Postoperative changes were compared. Surgical success was defined as horizontal deviation < 5 prism diopters (PD) esodeviation and < 10 PD exodeviation on distance measurement at 1.5 years postoperatively.
resultsForty patients were included; LR-Adj group included 21 and MR-Adj group included 19 patients. The mean esodeviation at distance fixation immediately after adjustment was 8.1 ± 5.4 PD in the LR-Adj group and 8.4 ± 4.7 PD in the MR-Adj group (P = 0.843). Postoperative exodrift occurred in both groups, and amount of exodeviation after 1.5 year were not significantly different. For the comparison of the amount of exodrift at near measurement, the amount of exodrift within 1 month after surgery was smaller in the MR-Adj group than that in the LR-Adj group (P = 0.01). Surgical success rates were 81.0% in the LR-Adj group and 84.2% in the MR-Adj group (P = 0.559).
conclusionsThe smaller amount of exodrift in the MR-Adj group may mean that the positional stability of the resected muscle is favorable in the early post-adjustment period. However, there was no significant difference groups in the final exodeviation and surgical success rate between the groups. Resected muscle adjustment was as effective as the conventional recessed muscle adjustment.
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.