Rehabilitative orbital decompression for Graves’ orbitopathy: results of a randomized clinical trial

• Published in: Journal of endocrinological investigation 2018-09, Vol.41 (9), p.1037-1042
• Main Authors: Sellari-Franceschini, S., Rocchi, R., Marinò, M., Bajraktari, A., Mazzi, B., Fiacchini, G., Lepri, P., Dallan, I., Vitti, P., Marcocci, C.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Clinical trials; Cohort Studies; Decompression; Decompression, Surgical - methods; Endocrinology; Exophthalmos - diagnosis; Exophthalmos - rehabilitation; Exophthalmos - surgery; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Graves Ophthalmopathy - diagnosis; Graves Ophthalmopathy - rehabilitation; Graves Ophthalmopathy - surgery; Humans; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Metabolic Diseases; Middle Aged; Orbit - pathology; Orbit - surgery; Original Article; Patients; Prospective Studies; Surgery; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1720-8386; 0391-4097; 1720-8386
• DOI: 10.1007/s40618-018-0847-7

Purpose Orbital decompression (OD) is a consolidated procedure for the treatment of exophthalmos in Graves’ orbitopathy (GO). The efficacy of the various procedures remains unclear due to the variability of the techniques used. To address this issue, we performed a randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy of two surgical techniques. The primary endpoint was the reduction in proptosis. Secondary aims were the risk of post-operative diplopia (POD) in primary gaze and other surgical complications. Patients 38 patients (76 orbits) affected with GO were enrolled and randomized into single lateral decompression (LD) ( n  = 19) or balanced medial plus lateral wall decompression (MLD) ( n  = 19). Following surgery, patients were seen for a follow-up ophthalmological evaluation at 6 months. Pre-operative diplopia in secondary gaze was present in 13/38 patients (34.2%, 8/19 treated with LD and 5/19 treated with MLD). Results The reduction of exophthalmos was greater in patients treated with MLD (5.1 ± 1.5 mm, range 2–8 mm) than in those treated with LD (3.5 ± 1.3 mm, range 1–6.5 mm) ( p  = 0.01). The overall incidence of POD in primary gaze was 5/38 (13.2%) and all of these patients had pre-operative diplopia in secondary gaze (5/13, 38.5%, vs patients with no pre-operative diplopia p  = 0.005). Two of 19 patients (10.5%) treated with LD and 3/19 (15.8%) treated with MLD, developed POD in primary gaze, with no statistical difference between the two techniques. Conclusion MLD provides a better result in terms of proptosis reduction compared to LD. The two techniques used here appear to have a similar safety profile in terms of POD. Pre-operative diplopia in the secondary gaze remains a major risk factor for development of POD.