BACKGROUND: Inferior oblique overaction can be either secondary (as a sequela of ipsilateral superior oblique palsy) or primary (commonly associated with horizontal strabismus). Superior oblique underaction often coexists with both primary and secondary inferior oblique overaction. This retrospective case series compares the efficacy of inferior oblique myectomy versus anterior transposition in improving inferior oblique overaction and superior oblique underaction in eyes with either primary or secondary inferior oblique overaction. METHODS: One hundred twenty eyes of 81 patients were included in this retrospective case series, of which 20 had anterior transposition of the inferior oblique and 100 eyes underwent myectomy. Inferior oblique myectomy was compared with inferior oblique anterior transposition in improving inferior oblique overaction and superior oblique underaction in each diagnostic subgroup. Postoperative outcome was qualitatively and quantitatively assessed. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the outcomes. The quantitative improvement of function in terms of inferior oblique overaction and superior oblique underaction was analyzed by regression analysis. RESULTS: When postoperative inferior oblique overaction was considered, there was no statistically significant difference between myectomy and anterior transposition in both primary and secondary inferior oblique overaction. Myectomy was superior to anterior transposition in improving superior oblique underaction in both primary inferior oblique overaction (OR = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.015-1.45; p = 0.056) and secondary inferior oblique overaction (OR = 0; 95% CI, 0-0.027; p < 0.001). The quantitative improvement of function showed a significant difference between procedures for superior oblique underaction (t-test; p = 0.005; 95% CI, 0.25-1.3) but not inferior oblique overaction (t-test; p = 0.8; 95% CI, -0.67-0.54). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates both inferior oblique myectomy and inferior oblique anterior transposition to be effective in correcting primary and secondary inferior oblique overaction. Myectomy is more effective in improving superior oblique underaction associated with both primary and secondary inferior oblique overaction. On this basis, we feel that inferior oblique myectomy has some advantage over anterior transposition in treating combined inferior oblique overaction and superior oblique underaction and can be considered the procedure of choice.
BACKGROUND: Inferior oblique overaction can be either secondary (as a sequela of ipsilateral superior oblique palsy) or primary (commonly associated with horizontal strabismus). Superior oblique underaction often coexists with both primary and secondary inferior oblique overaction. This retrospective case series compares the efficacy of inferior oblique myectomy versus anterior transposition in improving inferior oblique overaction and superior oblique underaction in eyes with either primary or secondary inferior oblique overaction. METHODS: One hundred twenty eyes of 81 patients were included in this retrospective case series, of which 20 had anterior transposition of the inferior oblique and 100 eyes underwent myectomy. Inferior oblique myectomy was compared with inferior oblique anterior transposition in improving inferior oblique overaction and superior oblique underaction in each diagnostic subgroup. Postoperative outcome was qualitatively and quantitatively assessed. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the outcomes. The quantitative improvement of function in terms of inferior oblique overaction and superior oblique underaction was analyzed by regression analysis. RESULTS: When postoperative inferior oblique overaction was considered, there was no statistically significant difference between myectomy and anterior transposition in both primary and secondary inferior oblique overaction. Myectomy was superior to anterior transposition in improving superior oblique underaction in both primary inferior oblique overaction (OR = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.015-1.45; p = 0.056) and secondary inferior oblique overaction (OR = 0; 95% CI, 0-0.027; p < 0.001). The quantitative improvement of function showed a significant difference between procedures for superior oblique underaction (t-test; p = 0.005; 95% CI, 0.25-1.3) but not inferior oblique overaction (t-test; p = 0.8; 95% CI, -0.67-0.54). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates both inferior oblique myectomy and inferior oblique anterior transposition to be effective in correcting primary and secondary inferior oblique overaction. Myectomy is more effective in improving superior oblique underaction associated with both primary and secondary inferior oblique overaction. On this basis, we feel that inferior oblique myectomy has some advantage over anterior transposition in treating combined inferior oblique overaction and superior oblique underaction and can be considered the procedure of choice.