ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Symmetric versus asymmetric surgery for the treatment of intermittent exotropia with equal dominance.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. 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.
- Y-split versus standard lateral rectus recession for sensory exotropia: a propensity-score adjusted cohort study.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Motor alignment and sensory outcomes in pediatric patients with basic-type intermittent exotropia after bilateral lateral rectus recession versus unilateral recession-resection.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
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
purposeLong-term surgical outcomes were compared between bilateral lateral rectus recession (BLR) and unilateral lateral rectus recession combined with medial rectus resection in the same eye (R&R) for therapy of basic type intermittent exotropia (IXT) with equal dominance.
methodsTwo hundred and sixty-eight subjects (3-11 years old) with basic IXT with equal dominance who underwent BLR or R&R surgery were enrolled to this study, and with a minimum follow-up period of 18 months. One hundred and fourteen patients underwent BLR surgery and 144 underwent R&R surgery at a single centre. Surgical outcomes between groups were compared. Surgery results were divided into 3 categories: undercorrection/recurrence (exotropia/phoriaå 10PD), success(esotropia/phoria ≤5PD to exotropia/phoria≤10PD), and overcorrection (esotropia/phoriaå 5 PD) according to postoperative deviation angle.
resultsNo statistical difference was detected between BLR group and R&R group at all intervals with the exception of the last examination, demonstrating a higher success rate and a lower recurrence rate in the BLR group than R&R group at last visit (P = 0.04). Additionally, the BLR group demonstrated a smaller exodrift than the R&R group at distance and near fixation (P = 0.01; P = 0.03). Stereoacuity and exotropia control showed overall improvement following both surgeries, and this improvement had no statistical difference between groups(P > 0.05).
conclusionsBLR showed better long-term results than R&R in the treatment of basic type intermittent exotropia with equal dominance given its low recurrence rate. Both BLR and R&R surgeries could improve stereoacuity function and exotropia control, and to same extents.
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.