International ophthalmology · 2023
Muller's muscle conjunctival resection versus external levator advancement for ptosis repair: systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Karam Mohammad, Alsaif Abdulmalik, Abul Ahmad, Alkhabbaz Ali, Alotaibi Abdulaziz, Shareef Eiman, Behbehani Raed
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the outcome of Muller's muscle conjunctival resection (MMCR) versus external levator advancement (ELA) in patients undergoing ptosis surgery.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, and a search of electronic information was conducted to identify all comparative studies of MMCR versus ELA in ptosis repair. The primary outcome measures were the post-operative marginal reflex distance (MRD1), ptosis under-correction, over-correction, and re-operation rate. Secondary outcome measures included cosmetic appearance, complications, operative time, and learning curve. Fixed-effect modelling was used for the analysis.
RESULTS: Seven studies that enrolled 1038 eyelids were identified in the literature. There was no statistically significant difference between the MMCR and ELA groups in post-operative MRD1 (Mean Difference [MD] = 0.13, P = 0.28) and the rate of under-correction odds ratio [OR] = 0.49, P = 0.14). However, ELA had a significantly higher rate of over-correction (OR = 0.17, P = 0.04) and re-operations (OR = 0.26, P = 0.0001) compared to MMCR. For secondary outcomes, MMCR had an improved cosmetic appearance, lower total number of complications and shorter operation time (MD = - 10.96, P < 0.00001). Finally, the two techniques had no significant difference in the learning curves.
CONCLUSION: Both MMCR and ELA are effective techniques for the surgical correction of ptosis; however, MMCR surgery is a more predictable and robust technique compared to, ELA with lower rates of over-correction and re-operation.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, and a search of electronic information was conducted to identify all comparative studies of MMCR versus ELA in ptosis repair. The primary outcome measures were the post-operative marginal reflex distance (MRD1), ptosis under-correction, over-correction, and re-operation rate. Secondary outcome measures included cosmetic appearance, complications, operative time, and learning curve. Fixed-effect modelling was used for the analysis.
RESULTS: Seven studies that enrolled 1038 eyelids were identified in the literature. There was no statistically significant difference between the MMCR and ELA groups in post-operative MRD1 (Mean Difference [MD] = 0.13, P = 0.28) and the rate of under-correction odds ratio [OR] = 0.49, P = 0.14). However, ELA had a significantly higher rate of over-correction (OR = 0.17, P = 0.04) and re-operations (OR = 0.26, P = 0.0001) compared to MMCR. For secondary outcomes, MMCR had an improved cosmetic appearance, lower total number of complications and shorter operation time (MD = - 10.96, P < 0.00001). Finally, the two techniques had no significant difference in the learning curves.
CONCLUSION: Both MMCR and ELA are effective techniques for the surgical correction of ptosis; however, MMCR surgery is a more predictable and robust technique compared to, ELA with lower rates of over-correction and re-operation.