• AAO PPP Committee, Secretary for Quality of Care, Hoskins Center for Quality Eye Care
    Oculoplastics/Orbit
    Compendium Type: I

    Clinical Question

    How effective are the surgical interventions for involutional entropion? Is any one method superior to another?

    Literature Search

    The PubMed literature search for the Cochrane Review was last updated on November 2, 2011. The Cochrane search identified 111 relevant studies; of these, 108 did not meet the inclusion criteria. Of the remaining three reports, one was excluded due to serious methodological flaws, and one represented an in-progress study for which complete data were unavailable. As such, one randomized controlled trial was included. An updated PubMed search was conducted on February 24, 2014, but none of the 125 new citations met the inclusion criteria of the review.

    Literature search details

    Systematic Review

    Boboridis KG, Bunce C.Interventions for involutional lower lid entropion. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD002221. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002221.pub2.

    Methods and Key to Ratings

    Preferred Practice Pattern Clinical Questions should be clinically relevant and specific enough to provide useful information to practitioners. Where evidence exists to support a recommendation for care, the recommendation should be given an explicit rating that shows the strength of evidence. To accomplish these aims, methods from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN)1 and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)2 group are used. All studies used to form a recommendation for care are graded for strength of evidence individually. To rate individual studies, a scale based on SIGN1 is used. GRADE is a systematic approach to grading the strength of the total body of evidence that is available to support recommendations on a specific clinical management issue. Organizations that have adopted GRADE include SIGN, the World Health Organization, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Policy, and the American College of Physicians.3

    SIGN1 Study Rating Scale

    I++

    High-quality meta-analyses, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or RCTs with a very low risk of bias

    I+

    Well-conducted meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a low risk of bias

    I-

    Meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a high risk of bias

    II++

    High-quality systematic reviews of case-control or cohort studies

    High-quality case-control or cohort studies with a very low risk of confounding or bias and a high probability that the relationship is causal

    II+

    Well-conducted case-control or cohort studies with a low risk of confounding or bias and a moderate probability that the relationship is causal

    II-

    Case-control or cohort studies with a high risk of confounding or bias and a significant risk that the relationship is not causal

    III

    Nonanalytic studies (e.g., case reports, case series)

    GRADE2 Quality Ratings

    Good quality

    Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect

    Moderate quality

    Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate

    Insufficient quality

    Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate

    Any estimate of effect is very uncertain

    GRADE2 Key Recommendations for Care

    Strong recommendation

    Used when the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh the undesirable effects or clearly do not

    Discretionary recommendation

    Used when the trade-offs are less certain-either because of low-quality evidence or because evidence suggests that desirable and undesirable effects are closely balanced

    Recommendations for Care

    Summary

    The objective of this review is to examine the effectiveness of medical interventions for involutional lower eyelid entropion, a condition where the eyelid margin and eyelashes turn in toward the eyeball. Involutional entropion is a common disorder in the elderly population. The combination of horizontal and vertical eyelid tightening with everting sutures and lateral tarsal strip, and vertical tightening with everting sutures alone, have been used for treatment. Currently, surgery to advance the lower eyelid retractors (with or without addressing horizontal laxity) is considered the only curative treatment for entropion. To date, the effectiveness of these surgical interventions, alone or in combination, have not been scrutinized. It remains uncertain if one technique is superior to another due to the lack of randomized studies.

    The results of a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) suggest that horizontal and vertical eyelid tightening with everting sutures and lateral tarsal strip combined are more effective than vertical tightening with everting sutures alone.4 Numerous high-quality retrospective case series also support the practice of combined surgical repair, though these studies were not considered in the Cochrane analysis. Combined horizontal and vertical eyelid tightening with everting sutures and lateral tarsal strip is a highly effective treatment option for involutional lower lid entropion. However, the rates of recurrence of entropion and complications of these procedures can not be ascertained in the absence of well-designed observational studies.

    (Study Rating Scale I-, Moderate Quality, Discretionary Recommendation)

    Discussion

    Involutional lower lid entropion is a progressive condition, and there is little consensus on when treatment should be given or what is the best surgical approach. Involutional entropion is characterized by the rubbing of the margin, lashes, and skin against the ocular surface, often leading to conjunctival inflammation and corneal abrasion. Entropion may also cause vascularization, thinning, infection, ulceration, perforation, and/or scarring of the cornea if left untreated. It occurs in 2.1% of the elderly population.5 Involutional entropion must be distinguished from cicatricial entropion caused by conjunctival scarring and shrinkage because the management is different. It should also be distinguished from trichiasis and distichiasis.

    Treatment

    In current clinical practice the only effective treatment for involutional entropion is surgery to repair or advance the lower eyelid retractors (with or without horizontal shortening). Some surgeons have attempted to stabilize the retractors by horizontal tightening of the orbicularis muscle.6, 7 Vertical and horizontal tightening techniques can also be combined, for example, by using a wedge excision or lateral canthal sling.8, 9 Non-surgical treatments, including antibiotic or lubricating ointments, chemodenervation of the orbicularis muscle, or everting the eyelid with adhesive tape, all may help alleviate symptoms of early stage disease but are of temporary benefit.

    Inclusion Criteria

    The Cochrane Review authors systematically evaluated the evidence for surgical and non-surgical treatments for involutional entropion. Their review was limited to RCTs; the results of non-randomized studies were discussed in the absence of RCTs, although these were not included in the analysts’ formal summary or a meta-analyses. Other review inclusion criteria were as follows:

    1. Study patients were older than 60 years of age with involutional lower lid entropion;
    2. Studies compared active interventions for management of involutional lower lid entropion;
    3. Surgical treatments eligible for consideration: a) directly or indirectly addressed vertical lid laxity, b) directly addressed horizontal lid laxity, or c) combined vertical and horizontal tightening;
    4. Non-surgical treatments eligible for consideration included taping the eyelid to the cheek, medical symptomatic support, and botulinum toxin injection;
    5. The primary outcome measure was surgical success (e.g., normal resting eyelid position). Valid secondary outcomes included recurrence, adverse events or complications, health-related quality of life, and socioeconomic variables. Outcomes were evaluated over the short term (within 6 months of the intervention), intermediate term (6 to 18 months following intervention), or long term (more than 18 months after intervention).

    Combined Vertical and Horizontal Tightening vs. Vertical Tightening Alone

    One RCT with 63 total subjects compared combined vertical and horizontal lower eyelid tightening with everting sutures and lateral tarsal strip (36 patients) versus vertical tightening with everting sutures alone (27 patients).4 A successful surgical outcome was measured as normal resting eyelid position and an inability to induce entropion via provocation testing at 18 months. Eight patients (7 in the vertical tightening group, 1 in the combined vertical and horizontal tightening group) were lost to follow-up. Of the 55 remaining subjects, all patients in the combined vertical and horizontal tightening group had successful outcomes at 18 months, while six patients in the vertical tightening group were classified as treatment failures. This difference was statistically significant. The study did not examine the differences in treatment based on whether the entropion was constant, intermittent, or occurred only with provocation.

    Another RCT, comparing lateral eyelid block excision against lateral tarsal strip, is currently recruiting patients.

    Conclusion

    Overall, the authors found evidence suggesting that combined vertical and horizontal eyelid tightening with everting sutures and lateral tarsal strip is superior to everting sutures alone for patients with involutional lower eyelid entropion. This conclusion is based on the results of a single, small RCT and numerous case series. The available published data are not sufficient to determine rates of recurrence of entropion or complications of these procedures. The treatment approach for a particular patient should be individualized. Further research on the efficacy of other surgical procedures and non-surgical treatments is needed.

    References

    1. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. SIGN 50: A Guideline Developer's Handbook. Available at: www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/index.html. Accessed March 5, 2014.

    2. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6.

    3. GRADE Working Group. Organizations that have endorsed or that are using GRADE. Available at: www.gradeworkinggroup.org/society/index.htm. Accessed February 15, 2014.

    4. Scheepers MA, Singh R, Ng J, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing everting sutures with everting sutures and a lateral tarsal strip for involutional entropion. Ophthalmology 2010;117:352-5.

    5. Damasceno RW, Osaki MH, Dantas PE, Belfort R, Jr. Involutional entropion and ectropion of the lower eyelid: prevalence and associated risk factors in the elderly population. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;27:317-20.

    6. Wies FA. Surgical treatment of entropion. J Int Coll Surg 1954;21:758-60.

    7. Jones LT, Reeh MJ, Tsujimura JK. Senile entropion. Am J Ophthalmol 1963;55:463-9.

    8. Anderson RL, Gordy DD. The tarsal strip procedure. Arch Ophthalmol 1979;97:2192-6.

    9. Tenzel RR. Treatment of lagophthalmos of the lower lid. Arch Ophthalmol 1969;81:366-8.

    Reviewers

    Preferred Practice Pattern Committee Members

    Stephen D. McLeod, MD, Chair

    Robert S. Feder, MD

    Timothy W. Olsen, MD

    Bruce E. Prum, Jr., MD

    C. Gail Summers, MD

    Ruth D. Williams

    David C. Musch, PhD, MPH, Methodologist

    Secretary for Quality of Care

    Anne L. Coleman, MD, PhD - Director, H. Dunbar Hoskins Jr., MD Center for Quality Eye Care

    Academy Staff

    Jennifer K. Harris, MS

    Nicholas P. Emptage, MAE

    Flora C. Lum, MD

    Approved by:

    Board of Trustees

    June 20, 2014

    AMERICAN ACADEMY OF OPHTHALMOLOGY and PREFERRED PRACTICE PATTERN are registered trademarks of the American Academy of Ophthalmology. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

    Copyright © 2014 American Academy of Ophthalmology®

    All Rights Reserved


    Disclosures

    In compliance with the Council of Medical Specialty Societies' Code for Interactions with Companies, relevant relationships with industry occurring from February to June 2014 are listed. The Academy complies with the Code in developing PPP Clinical Questions by following the Preferred Practice Patterns and Ophthalmic Technology Assessments: New Relationship with Industry Procedures.

    Anne L. Coleman, MD, PhD: No financial relationships to disclose

    Robert S. Feder, MD: No financial relationships to disclose

    Stephen D. McLeod, MD: No financial relationships to disclose

    David C. Musch, PhD, MPH: No financial relationships to disclose

    Timothy W. Olsen, MD: No financial relationships to disclose

    Bruce E. Prum, Jr., MD: No financial relationships to disclose

    C. Gail Summers, MD: No financial relationships to disclose

    Ruth D. Williams, MD: No financial relationships to disclose

    Academy Staff: No financial relationships to disclose