Effect of Modified Vertical Rectus Belly Transposition vs Augmented Superior Rectus Transposition Plus Medial Rectus Recession for Chronic Sixth Nerve Palsy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract

Importance:

Both vertical rectus belly transposition (VRBT) and superior rectus transposition (SRT) can be performed simultaneously with ipsilateral medial rectus recession (MRc) and have been shown to be effective for chronic sixth nerve palsy. However, it is unclear whether VRBT is superior to SRT in correcting esotropia.

Objective:

To compare the effectiveness of modified VRBT plus MRc (mVRBT-MRc) vs augmented SRT plus MRc (aSRT-MRc) in Chinese patients with chronic sixth nerve palsy.

Design, Setting, and Participants:

This parallel-design, double-masked, single-center, randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 15, 2018, to May 24, 2021. The follow-up visits were scheduled at 1 month and 6 months. Eligible Chinese participants with unilateral chronic sixth nerve palsy were randomly assigned to receive either mVRBT-MRc (VRBT group) or aSRT-MRc (SRT group).

Interventions:

mVRBT-MRc or aSRT-MRc.

Main Outcomes and Measures:

Change of horizontal deviation in primary position from baseline to 6 months.

Results:

Of the total 25 eligible participants, the mean (SD) age was 45.4 (12.6) years, with 10 male participants (40%) and 15 female participants (60%). Thirteen participants (52%) were randomly assigned to the VRBT group, and 12 (48%) were randomly assigned to the SRT group. At baseline, the mean (SD) horizontal deviation was 65.7 (10.8) prism diopters (Δ) in the VRBT group and 60.5Δ(14.1Δ) in the SRT group. Similar amounts of MRc were performed in both groups. At 6 months, the horizontal deviation changed from baseline by 66.3Δ in the VRBT group and by 51.5Δ in the SRT group. The adjusted group difference was 10.9Δ (95% CI, 5.3Δ-16.6Δ), favoring the VRBT group (P = .001). Four times as many participants corrected more than 60Δ with mVRBT-MRc compared with aSRT-MRc. The group difference of the improvement of abduction limitation was -0.2 (95% CI, -0.8 to 0.5; P = .64). Although there was a higher proportion of undercorrection in the SRT group (difference, 45%; 95% CI, 16%-75%; P = .01), no differences were identified for other suboptimal outcomes between groups.

Conclusions and Relevance:

Compared with aSRT-MRc, mVRBT-MRc showed better effect in correcting esotropia with no differences detected for other suboptimal outcomes. mVRBT-MRc may be a promising alternative surgical procedure for chronic sixth nerve palsy, particularly for large esotropia of more than 60Δ, if these results are confirmed in larger, diverse cohorts with longer follow-up.

Trial Registration:

ChiCTR Identifier: ChiCTR-INR-17013705.

• Authors: Jing Yao, Chao Jiang, Xiying Wang, Weiyi Xia, Ling Ling, Wenqing Zhu, Lianqun Wu, Chen Zhao
• Journal: JAMA ophthalmology (JAMA Ophthalmol) Vol. 140 Issue 9 Pg. 872-879 (09 01 2022) ISSN: 2168-6173 [Electronic] United States
• PMID: 35925582 (Publication Type: Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't)

Topics

• Abducens Nerve Diseases (surgery)
• Esotropia (surgery)
• Eye Movements
• Female
• Graft vs Host Disease (surgery)
• Humans
• Male
• Middle Aged
• Oculomotor Muscles (surgery)
• Ophthalmologic Surgical Procedures (methods)
• Retrospective Studies
• Vision, Binocular (physiology)