Lateral rectus resection versus medial rectus re-recession for residual esotropia: Early results of a randomized clinical trial

9Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare lateral rectus muscle resection with medial rectus muscle re-recession for patients with residual esotropia. Methods: This randomized controlled clinical trial included 25 patients (mean age, 18.8 = 8.7 years) with residual esotropia who were candidates for reoperation. They were randomly assigned into two groups: re-recession group (n = 12), in which the medial rectus muscle was recessed again, and the resection group (n = 13), in which lateral rectus muscle resection was performed. Postoperative deviation ≤10 prism dioptres was considered to be treatment success. Results: The success rate of the re-recession group and the resection group was 67% and 54%, respectively; this difference was not statistically significant. Each 1 mm of medial rectus re-recession and lateral rectus resection corrected 7.5 ± 1.2 and 2.5 ± 0.5 prism dioptres of residual esotropia, respectively. In 50% of the re-recession group, mild medial rectus muscle underaction occurred; however, only 16.5% developed an increase in the near point of convergence. Major intraoperative and postoperative complications, including overcorrection and slippage or a lost muscle, did not occur in any of the patients. Conclusions: Medial rectus muscle re-recession canbe a substitute for lateral rectus muscle resection in patients with residual esotropia. The resultant underaction of the medial rectus muscle after re-recession is relatively mild and causes no major problems. © 2007 The Authors; Journal compilation © 2007 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rajavi, Z., Ghadim, H. M., Ramezani, A., Azemati, M., & Daneshvar, F. (2007). Lateral rectus resection versus medial rectus re-recession for residual esotropia: Early results of a randomized clinical trial. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 35(6), 520–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2007.01548.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free