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
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Ophthalmology
ISSN
0721-832X
eISSN
1435-702X
D.O.I.
10.1007/s00417-018-3912-1
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

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

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.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off