Suppr超能文献

用于斜视的可调节缝线与不可调节缝线

Adjustable versus non-adjustable sutures for strabismus.

作者信息

Haridas Anjana, Sundaram Venki

机构信息

c/o Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group, ICEH, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 2(7):CD004240. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004240.pub3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Strabismus, or squint, can be defined as a deviation from perfect ocular alignment and can be classified in many ways according to its aetiology and presentation. Treatment can be broadly divided into medical and surgical options, with a variety of surgical techniques being available, including the use of adjustable or non-adjustable sutures for the extraocular muscles. There exists an uncertainty as to which of these techniques produces a better surgical outcome, and also an opinion that the adjustable suture technique may be of greater benefit in certain situations.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether adjustable or non-adjustable sutures are associated with a more accurate long-term ocular alignment following strabismus surgery and to identify any specific situations in which it would be of benefit to use a particular method.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, (January 1950 to January 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 17 January 2013. We also contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjustable to non-adjustable sutures for strabismus surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We did not find any studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not find any studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review, therefore none were included for analysis. Results of non-randomised studies that compared these techniques are reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No reliable conclusions could be reached regarding which technique (adjustable or non-adjustable sutures) produces a more accurate long-term ocular alignment following strabismus surgery or in which specific situations one technique is of greater benefit than the other. High quality RCTs are needed to obtain clinically valid results and to clarify these issues. Such trials should ideally a) recruit participants with any type of strabismus or specify the subgroup of participants to be studied, for example, thyroid, paralytic, non-paralytic, paediatric; b) randomise all consenting participants to have either adjustable or non-adjustable surgery prospectively; c) have at least six months of follow-up data; and d) include re-operation rates as a primary outcome measure.

摘要

背景

斜视,即斜眼,可定义为眼位未能完全对齐,根据其病因和表现有多种分类方式。治疗方法大致可分为药物治疗和手术治疗,手术技术多样,包括使用可调节或不可调节缝线来缝合眼外肌。目前尚不确定哪种技术能产生更好的手术效果,也有一种观点认为可调节缝线技术在某些情况下可能更有益。

目的

研究斜视手术后,可调节缝线或不可调节缝线是否与更精确的长期眼位对齐相关,并确定使用特定方法有益的任何具体情况。

检索方法

我们检索了Cochrane中心对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)(其中包含Cochrane眼科和视力组试验注册库)(《Cochrane图书馆》2012年第12期)、Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid MEDLINE在研及其他未索引引文、Ovid MEDLINE每日更新、Ovid OLDMEDLINE(1950年1月至2013年1月)、EMBASE(1980年1月至2013年1月)、拉丁美洲和加勒比地区卫生科学文献数据库(LILACS)(1982年1月至2013年1月)、对照试验元注册库(mRCT)(www.controlled-trials.com)、ClinicalTrials.gov(http://clinicaltrials.gov)以及世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)(www.who.int/ictrp/search/en)。我们在电子检索试验时未设置任何日期或语言限制。我们最后一次检索电子数据库是在2013年1月17日。我们还联系了该领域的专家以获取更多信息。

选择标准

我们计划仅纳入比较斜视手术中可调节缝线与不可调节缝线的随机对照试验(RCT)。

数据收集与分析

我们未找到任何符合本综述纳入标准的研究。

主要结果

我们未找到任何符合本综述纳入标准的研究,因此未纳入任何研究进行分析。报告了比较这些技术的非随机研究结果。

作者结论

关于哪种技术(可调节或不可调节缝线)在斜视手术后能产生更精确的长期眼位对齐,或者在哪些具体情况下一种技术比另一种技术更有益,无法得出可靠结论。需要高质量的RCT来获得临床有效结果并阐明这些问题。理想情况下,此类试验应:a)招募任何类型斜视的参与者,或明确要研究的参与者亚组,例如,甲状腺相关性、麻痹性、非麻痹性、小儿斜视;b)将所有同意参与的参与者前瞻性随机分为接受可调节或不可调节手术;c)有至少六个月的随访数据;d)将再次手术率作为主要结局指标。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验