Advertisement

Amniotic membrane transplantation with narrow-strip conjunctival autograft vs conjunctival autograft for recurrent pterygia

Amniotic membrane transplantation with narrow-strip conjunctival autograft vs conjunctival autograft for recurrent pterygia

Eur J Ophthalmol 2017; 27(2): 135 - 140

Article Type: ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

DOI:10.5301/ejo.5000773

Authors

José B. Barbosa, Charles Costa De Farias, Flávio E. Hirai, José Á. Pereira Gomes

Abstract

Purpose

To compare amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) associated with narrow-strip conjunctival autograft vs conjunctival autograft alone for the treatment of recurrent pterygium.

Methods

In this prospective consecutive interventional study, patients with recurrent pterygium were randomly divided into one of 2 groups; group 1: patients undergoing AMT associated with autologous conjunctival graft; and group 2: patients undergoing conjunctival autograft alone.

Results

Of the 80 operated eyes included in this study, 39 (group 1, mean patient age 52.1 ± 11.7 SD years) underwent AMT associated with narrow-strip conjunctival autograft and 41 (group 2, mean patient age 45.8 ± 12.9 SD years) underwent conjunctival autograft alone. In group 1, 6 eyes (15.4%) had grade 1 pterygium, 19 eyes (48.7%) had grade 2 pterygium, and 14 eyes (35.9%) had grade 3 pterygium. In the second group, 5 eyes (12.2%) had grade 1 pterygium, 18 eyes (43.9%) had grade 2 pterygium, and 14 eyes (35.9%) had grade 3 pterygium. No statistically significant difference was found between the 2 groups (p = 0.752). Of the 39 eyes in group 1, recurrent pterygium was observed in 7 cases (17.9%). However, of the 41 eyes in group 2, recurrent pterygium was observed in only 4 cases (9.75%). No statistically significant difference was found between the 2 groups (p = 0.2684).

Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that conjunctival autograft alone might be a better surgical choice for the treatment of recurrent pterygia than combining it with AMT; however, this second option provides a good surgical alternative in cases where little conjunctival donor tissue is available.

Article History

Disclosures

Financial support: Supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).
Conflict of interest: None of the authors has conflict of interest with this submission.

This article is available as full text PDF.

  • If you are a Subscriber, please log in now.

  • Article price: Eur 36,00
  • You will be granted access to the article for 72 hours and you will be able to download any format (PDF or ePUB). The article will be available in your login area under "My PayPerView". You will need to register a new account (unless you already own an account with this journal), and you will be guided through our online shop. Online purchases are paid by Credit Card through PayPal.
  • If you are not a Subscriber you may:
  • Subscribe to this journal
  • Unlimited access to all our archives, 24 hour a day, every day of the week.

Authors

Affiliations

  • Department of Ophthalmology, Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo - Brazil

Article usage statistics

The blue line displays unique views in the time frame indicated.
The yellow line displays unique downloads.
Views and downloads are counted only once per session.

No supplementary material is available for this article.