ArticleCureus2026
The Optimal Surgical Strategy and Dose for Esotropia.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The study objective was to determine the clinical predictors of surgical failures following horizontal strabismus surgery for esotropia, in order to estimate the model-predicted optimal surgical strategy. A retrospective pooled observational case series of published cases was performed. Patients having horizontal strabismus surgery for esotropia, published between 1940 and 2025, with known preoperative deviation, surgical approach, and outcome were studied. Clinical data from individual patients having strabismus surgery for esotropia were recorded from published case series and analyzed using multivariable logistic regression to predict over- and under-correction. The main outcome measure was surgical failure, as determined by reoperation, suture adjustment, or postoperative strabismus of 10 prism diopters (PD) or more. We abstracted individual patient data for 3518 surgeries from 163 publications. Binocular (as compared with monocular) surgery was associated with fewer under-corrections (odds ratio (OR): 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61 to 0.92, p=0.005) and more over-corrections (OR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.26 to 2.79, p=0.002, n=3266). Increasing preoperative deviation was associated with more under-corrections (OR: 1.06/°, 95% CI: 1.05/° to 1.07/°, p<0.0001) and fewer over-corrections (OR: 0.97/°, 95% CI: 0.95/° to 0.99/°, p=0.001, n=3266). Increasing surgical dose was associated with fewer under-corrections (OR: 0.95/mm, 95% CI: 0.91/mm to 0.99/mm, p=0.01) and more over-corrections (OR: 1.08/mm, 95% CI: 1.01/mm to 1.16/mm, p=0.02, n=3266). The failure rate was minimized with a large per-muscle surgical dose. As the preoperative deviation increases, one progresses from unilateral recessions, to unilateral recession-resections, and then to bi-medial recessions. Under a range of assumptions, bi-medial recessions of 6 mm are optimal (according to the models) for preoperative deviations of 45-50 prism diopters. We conclude that larger doses for esotropia surgery do produce a larger response. Most models predicted the lowest failure rates with large recessions or resections, with additional muscles operated for larger preoperative deviations.
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.