Paridaens D, Hans K, van Buitenen S, Mourits M P
Donders Institute of Ophthalmology, Department of Orbital Surgery, Academic Hospital Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Eye (Lond). 1998;12 ( Pt 5):800-5. doi: 10.1038/eye.1998.207.
Firstly, to assess the incidence of induced diplopia following orbital decompression in patients with Graves' orbitopathy. Secondly, to assess patient satisfaction after orbital decompression. Thirdly, to determine the factors that contribute to the variable reported incidence of diplopia complicating decompression surgery.
We present a retrospective analysis of the alterations of ocular motility in a consecutive series of 81 patients with Graves' orbitopathy who underwent orbital decompression by either a coronal or a translid approach. We assessed patient satisfaction by a telephone survey, and we reviewed the literature.
Eleven patients underwent decompressive surgery for dysthyroid optic neuropathy (DON); 5 of them had a three-wall coronal decompression, the other 6 had a two-wall translid decompression. One of the 5 (20%) coronal versus 2 of the 6 (33%) traslid patients experienced worsening of their existing diplopia. Seventy patients underwent surgery for disfiguring proptosis; 41 of them had a coronal decompression and 29 had a translid decompression. Eight of the 41 coronal patients (20%) and 4 of the 29 translid patients (14%) experienced aggravation of their motility impairment. There was no statistically significant difference between these percentages (chi-squared, p > 0.05). Three of 26 coronal patients (12%) without pre-operative motility impairment developed diplopia in all directions. Twenty-five per cent needed strabismus surgery (9% multiple times). High satisfaction scores were noted after both types of orbital decompression. Through a review of the literature, several factors that may add to heterogeneous results were identified, including definition of diplopia, inclusion criteria and type of surgery.
Induced diplopia is seen after any type of orbital decompression (19% overall), and its incidence is determined by various factors. To facilitate comparative studies between decompression techniques, a standardised protocol for orthoptic evaluation should be developed.
第一,评估格雷夫斯眼眶病患者眼眶减压术后诱发复视的发生率。第二,评估眼眶减压术后患者的满意度。第三,确定导致减压手术并发复视发生率报道存在差异的因素。
我们对81例格雷夫斯眼眶病患者进行了回顾性分析,这些患者采用冠状或经睑入路接受了眼眶减压手术。我们通过电话调查评估患者满意度,并查阅了文献。
11例患者因甲状腺功能障碍性视神经病变(DON)接受减压手术;其中5例行三壁冠状减压,另外6例行两壁经睑减压。5例冠状减压患者中有1例(20%),6例经睑减压患者中有2例(33%)出现原有复视加重。70例患者因眼球突出畸形接受手术;其中41例行冠状减压,29例行经睑减压。41例冠状减压患者中有8例(20%),29例经睑减压患者中有4例(14%)出现眼球运动障碍加重。这些百分比之间无统计学显著差异(卡方检验,p>0.05)。26例术前无眼球运动障碍的冠状减压患者中有3例(12%)出现各方向复视。25%的患者需要斜视手术(9%为多次手术)。两种类型的眼眶减压术后患者满意度评分均较高。通过查阅文献,确定了几个可能导致结果异质性的因素,包括复视的定义、纳入标准和手术类型。
任何类型的眼眶减压术后均可出现诱发复视(总体发生率为19%),其发生率由多种因素决定。为便于减压技术之间的比较研究,应制定标准化的眼肌评估方案。