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
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology – Springer Journals
Published: Jan 24, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.
Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.
It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera