[Orbit decompression surgery in patients with exophthalmos caused by Graves-Basedow disease]. Surgical or medical decompression as a first-line treatment of optic neuropathy in Graves' ophthalmopathy? A randomized controlled trial.
To evaluate in a prospective trial two surgical technique routinely used for orbital decompression in Graves' disease ophthalmopathy.
                Patients with Graves' disease exophthalmus (greater than 22 mm) that was euthyroid for at least six months after treatment were admitted to the study and randomly assigned to two groups, twenty six orbits in 17 patients were surgically decompressed with the Walsh and Ogura technique (group I) and 18 orbits in 18 patients were decompressed with Kennedy's surgical approach (group II).
                Both surgical techniques were equally effective in reducing the exophthalmus (p < 0.05). Morbility was significantly greater in terms of diplopia and infraorbital nerve lesion with Walsh and Ogura surgical approach.
                Due to reduced morbility, orbital surgical decompression with Kennedy's technique is recommended in patients with Graves' disease exofthalmus. Only a small percentage of Graves' ophthalmopathy (GO) patients develop optic neuropathy with impending loss of visual acuity. Therapy with methylprednisolone pulses is the treatment of first choice in severe and active GO patients. When the effect is insufficient, patients are usually treated with surgical decompression. We investigated whether surgery could become the first-line treatment, thus preventing treatment with steroids.
                We performed a randomized trial in 15 patients with very active GO and optic neuropathy. Six patients were treated with surgical decompression, and nine with methylprednisolone i.v. pulses for 2 weeks, followed by oral prednisone for 4 months. The primary outcome was determined by changes in visual acuity. If the eye disease deteriorated despite treatment or did not improve sufficiently, patients were switched to the other treatment arm.
                The severity and activity of GO in both groups were similar at baseline. The Clinical Activity Score (CAS) was 6.3+/- 0.8 in the surgical group vs. 6.0+/- 0.5 in the steroids group and the Total Eye Score was 24+/- 6 vs. 25+/- 6. In the surgery group, 5/6 patients (82%) did not respond because of insufficient improvement in vision (n=3) or persistent chemosis (n=2), and all needed further immunosuppression. In the steroids group, 4/9 patients (45%) did not improve in visual acuity (P=0.132 vs. surgery group), and these needed decompressive surgery. All patients in whom therapy failed were switched to the other treatment arm and visual acuity improved in almost all patients. Visual acuity improved from 0.36 (0.02--0.40) to 0.90 (0.63--1.0) in the surgery group and from 0.50 (0.32--0.63) to 0.75 (0.32--1.0) in the steroids group at 52 weeks. At long-term follow-up in the surgery group 3/6 patients required squint surgery and 5/9 patients in the steroids group. Eyelid surgery was performed in 5/6 patients in the surgery group and in 4/9 patients in the steroids group.
                Immediate surgery does not result in a better outcome and therefore methylprednisolone pulse therapy appears to be the first-choice therapy.
A single study showed that the transantral approach for orbital decompression was related to more complications than the endoscopic transnasal technique which is preferred by Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) surgeons, usually as an adjunctive procedure. Intravenous steroids were reported in a single trial to be the most efficient intervention for dysthyroid optic neuropathy. The majority of published literature on orbital decompression for thyroid eye disease consists of retrospective, cohort, or case series studies. Although these provide useful descriptive information, clarification is required to show the relative effectiveness of each intervention for various indications.
The two RCTs reviewed are not robust enough to provide credible evidence to our understanding of current decompressive surgery and to support recommendations for clinical practice. There is evidence from currently available uncontrolled studies that removal of the medial and lateral wall (balanced decompression) with or without fat removal may be the most effective surgical method related to only a few complications.
There is a clear need for randomised studies evaluating the balanced two-wall, three-wall and orbital fat decompression techniques. Comparison with other surgical techniques for orbital decompression or with immunosuppression in cases of compressive optic neuropathy would also be important. These studies should primarily address the reduction of exophthalmos, disease severity, complication rates, quality of life and cost of the intervention.