RESUMEN
ABSTRACT Purpose: To compare inferomedial wall orbital decompression to balanced medial plus lateral wall orbital decompression in patients with Graves' orbitopathy in the inactive phase with regard to exophthalmos reduction and the effects on quality of life. Methods: Forty-two patients with inactive Graves' orbitopathy were randomly divided into two groups and submitted to one of two orbital decompression techniques: inferomedial wall orbital decompression or medial plus lateral wall orbital decompression. Preoperative and postoperative assessments included Hertel's exophthalmometry and a validated Graves' orbitopathy quality of life questionnaire. The results of the two groups were compared. Results: Compared to preoperative measurement, exophthalmos reduction was statistically significant in both groups (p<0.001) but more so in patients undergoing medial plus lateral wall orbital decompression (p=0.010). Neither orbital decompression techniques increased the visual functioning subscale score on the Graves' orbitopathy quality of life questionnaire (inferomedial wall orbital decompression p=0.362 and medial plus lateral wall orbital decompression p=0.727), but a statistically significant difference was observed in the score of the appearance subscale in patients submitted to medial plus lateral wall orbital decompression (p=0.006). Conclusions: Inferomedial wall orbital decompression is a good alternative for patients who do not require large exophthalmos reduction. However, medial plus lateral wall orbital decompression offers greater exophthalmos reduction and greater improvement in appearance (higher Graves' orbitopathy quality of life questionnaire scores), making it a suitable option for esthetic-functional rehabilitation.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To compare the surgical outcomes of inferomedial wall orbital decompression (IM-OD) and balanced medial plus lateral wall orbital decompression (ML-OD) in patients with inactive Graves' orbitopathy (GO) with regard to exophthalmos reduction and ocular motility abnormalities. METHODS: Forty-two patients with inactive GO eligible for OD were randomly assigned to either the IM-OD or ML-OD groups. Pre and postoperative evaluations included Hertel exophthalmometry, sensory, and motor extraocular motility assessment, standardized photographs in the nine gaze positions, and computed tomography (CT) of the orbits. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03278964. RESULTS: Exophthalmometry reduction was statistically significant in both groups (p<0.001), but was greater in the ML-OD group (p=0.010). New-onset esotropia occurred in 11.1% and 23.5% of patients who underwent IM-OD and ML-OD, respectively, with no statistically significant difference in the frequency of pre and postoperative strabismus in either group. The mean increase in preoperative esotropia was 24±6.9 and 12±8.8 prism diopters in patients who underwent IM-OD and ML-OD, respectively. In the IM-OD group, abduction and elevation worsened at the first (p<0.05) and third (p<0.05) postoperative visits but were restored at 6 months. The versions did not change postoperatively with ML-OD. The preoperative CT-measured medial rectus muscle area predicted new-onset strabismus (p=0.023). Significant postoperative medial rectus muscle enlargement occurred in both groups (p<0.001). Restriction in elevation and abduction was significantly associated with enlarged inferior (p=0.007) and medial rectus muscle areas (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: IM-OD is as safe as ML-OD with regard to new-onset strabismus, and represents a good alternative for patients who do not require significant exophthalmos reduction. ML-OD offers greater exophthalmos reduction and smoother postoperative recovery. Patients with preoperative enlarged medial rectus muscle on CT are at risk for new-onset esotropia, and preoperative esotropia is likely to increase after OD.