Long-term surgical outcomes of one-muscle vs. two-muscle horizontal strabismus surgery.

PURPOSE: While horizontal strabismus surgery is generally considered to have favorable outcomes, success rates can vary by type of procedure. Our purpose is to compare the long-term outcomes of patients who underwent one-muscle vs. two-muscle horizontal strabismus surgery. METHODS: This is a retrospective study comparing one-muscle to two-muscle strabismus surgery for small to moderate angle horizontal strabismus. Demographic data and eye exam parameters were compared at baseline and postoperatively (6 months up to 6 years). Surgical success was defined as a post-operative angle of 10 PD or less. We also compared outcomes by strabismus type: esotropia vs exotropia and adjusted the analysis for previous strabismus surgery. RESULTS: Out of 89 patients with moderate angle horizontal strabismus (25 PD or less), 17 patients had a one-muscle operation, and 72 patients had two-muscle surgery. The mean age was 14.12 ± 9.30 years and 11.70 ± 11.30 years for the one-muscle and two-muscle groups, respectively (p = .74). The baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. Follow-up time was 32.82 ± 26.93 months in one-muscle and 37.67 ± 23.81 in two-muscle groups (p = .29). Success rate was 70.6% for the one-muscle group and 68.10% for the two-muscle group (p = .69). Outcomes were similar when divided into esotropia and exotropia. The success rate was not affected by previous strabismus surgeries nor by the initial angle of deviation. CONCLUSION: One-muscle and two-muscle horizontal strabismus surgery had similar long-term outcomes and did not differ by strabismus type nor by angle of deviation.

Patterns of cannabis use, perception of harm, and perceived impact of legislative change in an online sample of young adults from Lebanon: insight on recreational users versus dual motive users.

BACKGROUND: Lebanon remains as one of the major sources of cannabis worldwide. In 2020, its government passed a legislation enabling the cultivation of local medicinal cannabis. This first study following the legislative change examines the overlapping use of cannabis for recreational/medicinal purposes and characteristics of the distinct cannabis user types. METHODS: A total of 1230 young adults (18-24 years) filled an anonymous online survey in early 2020. RESULTS: Young adults in the sample were distributed as follows: 33% 18-20 years; 60% males; 94% Lebanese; 75% students; and 89% living with family. The older young adults (21-24), males, those employed, living with non-family members, and who perceived themselves as being a little/lot richer than most were statistically significantly more present in the cannabis user subtypes (recreational only or recreational/medicinal) than non-cannabis users. When dual recreational/medicinal users are compared to recreational users only, the latter seemed to have a more conservative profile of behaviours, attitudes, and perceptions and acts of harm. The prevalence ratio comparing the prevalence of users supporting consuming cannabis "once or twice" in dual motive users vs. recreational users only was 1.13 for "once or twice", 1.25 for "occasionally", 1.64 for "regularly", and 2.4 for "daily". Any other illicit drug use was reported by 1% of the non-cannabis users, 36% of the recreational users only, and 58% of the recreational/medicinal users (p-value < 0.01). Similarly, any prescription drug use was reported by 3% of the non-cannabis users, 16% of the recreational users only, and 28% of both recreational/medicinal users (p-value < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The interface between recreational and medicinal cannabis use is complex. Dual motive users may warrant special attention as a subpopulation of cannabis users. This is relevant to contexts experiencing medicinal cannabis legislation changes, such as Lebanon, as policymakers and implementers should be sensitized to the emerging evidence for more data-informed policy changes.