Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Bilateral lateral rectus recession versus unilateral recession resection for basic intermittent exotropia: a meta-analysis

Bilateral lateral rectus recession versus unilateral recession resection for basic intermittent... Objective To compare the outcomes between bilateral lateral rectus recession (BLR) and unilateral recession resection (R&R) procedures in the treatment of basic intermittent exotropia. Methods Databases from Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched prior to June 2, 2017. From these searches, three eligible randomized studies and three retrospective cohort trials, which compared conventional BLR versus R&R procedure were identified. Differences observed between these two interventions (BLR versus R&R) were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The data on rates of success, recurrence, and overcorrection were pooled and analyzed using a random-effects model. Results Our findings, as generated from the pooled estimates, suggested that success rates for the R&R procedure were signif- icantly greater than that of BLR (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31–0.79; P = 0.003) and patients subjected to the BLR procedure were more likely to be recurrent (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.17–5.10; P = 0.02). No statistically significant differences in the combined results for overcorrection rates were present between the BLR and R&R procedures (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.32–2.28; P =0.75). Conclusion The overall findings from this meta-analysis indicated that the conventional R&R procedure is associated http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Springer Journals

Bilateral lateral rectus recession versus unilateral recession resection for basic intermittent exotropia: a meta-analysis

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/bilateral-lateral-rectus-recession-versus-unilateral-recession-C0MmeNqBmC

References (31)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Ophthalmology
ISSN
0721-832X
eISSN
1435-702X
DOI
10.1007/s00417-018-3912-1
pmid
29368040
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Objective To compare the outcomes between bilateral lateral rectus recession (BLR) and unilateral recession resection (R&R) procedures in the treatment of basic intermittent exotropia. Methods Databases from Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched prior to June 2, 2017. From these searches, three eligible randomized studies and three retrospective cohort trials, which compared conventional BLR versus R&R procedure were identified. Differences observed between these two interventions (BLR versus R&R) were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The data on rates of success, recurrence, and overcorrection were pooled and analyzed using a random-effects model. Results Our findings, as generated from the pooled estimates, suggested that success rates for the R&R procedure were signif- icantly greater than that of BLR (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31–0.79; P = 0.003) and patients subjected to the BLR procedure were more likely to be recurrent (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.17–5.10; P = 0.02). No statistically significant differences in the combined results for overcorrection rates were present between the BLR and R&R procedures (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.32–2.28; P =0.75). Conclusion The overall findings from this meta-analysis indicated that the conventional R&R procedure is associated

Journal

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental OphthalmologySpringer Journals

Published: Jan 24, 2018

There are no references for this article.