Comparison of Unilateral Versus Bilateral Lateral Rectus Recession for Small Angle Intermittent Exotropia: Outcomes and Surgical Dose-Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the surgical outcomes of unilateral lateral rectus recession to bilateral lateral rectus recession for small angle intermittent exotropia. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients with an intermittent exotropia between 16 and 20 prism diopters (PD) who underwent unilateral lateral rectus recession or bilateral lateral rectus recession at a single tertiary care pediatric hospital. The primary outcome was success (exotropia < 10 PD of esotropia < 5 PD, no decrease in stereopsis > 0.6 log arcsec, and no reoperation) at 12 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included survival analysis of time to surgical failure, surgical dose-response, and improvement in central fusion or stereopsis. Results: At 12 months, successful outcomes were achieved in 13 of 27 patients (46%) in the bilateral lateral rectus recession group and 19 of 28 patients (70%) in the unilateral lateral rectus recession group, which was not a statistically significant difference ( P = .10). Survival analysis showed a trend toward a higher rate of failure in the bilateral lateral rectus recession group compared to the unilateral lateral rectus recession group ( P = .04). The mean surgical dose-response was 1.7 PD/mm at 1 week and 1.0 PD/mm at 12 months for the bilateral lateral rectus recession group, and 2.0 PD/mm at 1 week postoperatively and 1.4 PD/mm at 12 months postoperatively for the unilateral lateral rectus recession group. There were no cases of long-term postoperative lateral incomitance in either group. Conclusions: Unilateral lateral rectus recession and bilateral lateral rectus recession have similar success rates for small angle intermittent exotropia after at least 12 months of follow-up. Randomized controlled trials in surgical management of intermittent exotropia should consider unilateral lateral rectus recession as a treatment arm. [ J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus . 2022;59(5):350–355.]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".