Comparison of bilateral/unilateral lateral rectus recession and unilateral recession-resection for intermittent exotropia: a Meta-analysis

Abstract

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of unilateral recession- resection (R&R) and bilateral/unilateral recession (BLR/ULR) for treatment of basic type of intermittent exotropia [IX(T)]. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, to identify randomized controlled trials and comparative studies regarding the effectiveness of R&R and BLR/ULR for IX(T). Based on which, a Meta-analysis was then performed in terms of long-term success rate, overcorrection rate, and recurrence rate. RESULTS: Nine studies in total satisfy the specified eligibility criteria. BLR is at disadvantage to R&R at a short-term follow-up [2y). There is no significant difference was found in overcorrection rate, regardless of the length of follow-up time [OR 0.85 (0.41, 1.75)]. In the treatment for small-angle IX(T), the final outcome was significantly different between the groups, demonstrating a more successful alignment [OR 0.37 (0.18, 0.74)] and a lower undercorrection [OR 3.50 (1.28, 7.26)] in the R&R group than in the ULR group. While for moderate-angle IX(T) (20 PD-25 PD), the effectiveness of R&R and ULR is quite equivalent with similar success rate [OR 1.08 (0.65, 1.79)] and undercorrection rate [OR 0.89 (0.54, 1.48)]. CONCLUSION: As regard to the effect of BLR and R&R, R&R shows an advantage over BLR at short term. But, BLR is more effective in the long term for the basic type IX(T) in children. R&R surgery should be a better choice for the treatment of small-angle IX(T) of ≤20 PD than ULR. However, both of ULR and R&R are recommended for moderate-angle IX(T) from 20 PD to 25 PD.

Keywords

• intermittent exotropia
• unilateral lateral rectus recession
• recess-resect
• moderate-angle exotropia