JAMA ophthalmology · 2013
Limbal-conjunctival vs conjunctival autograft transplant for recurrent pterygia: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Al Fayez Mashhoor F
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of limbal-conjunctival vs conjunctival autograft transplant for treating recurrent pterygia.
METHODS: In a randomized, prospective, parallel-group clinical trial, 224 patients with advanced recurrent pterygia underwent free conjunctival autograft transplant (112 eyes) or limbal-conjunctival autograft transplant (112 eyes). Two hundred five patients completed the follow-up (100 eyes from the conjunctival autograft group and 105 eyes from the limbal-conjunctival autograft group).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recurrence of pterygium, with complications as the secondary outcome measure (ie, signs of limbal stem cell deficiency).
RESULTS: With a mean follow-up of 62 (range, 36-96) months, 10 patients (10.0%) in the conjunctival autograft group and 1 patient (1.0%) in the limbal-conjunctival autograft group developed recurrence. No signs of limbal stem cell deficiency were observed during follow-up.
CONCLUSION: Limbal-conjunctival transplant is safe and more effective than free conjunctival transplant in preventing recurrence after excision of recurrent pterygia (P = .004).
APPLICATION TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Limbal-conjunctival autografts could be a favored option for managing advanced recurrent pterygia in young high-risk patients.
METHODS: In a randomized, prospective, parallel-group clinical trial, 224 patients with advanced recurrent pterygia underwent free conjunctival autograft transplant (112 eyes) or limbal-conjunctival autograft transplant (112 eyes). Two hundred five patients completed the follow-up (100 eyes from the conjunctival autograft group and 105 eyes from the limbal-conjunctival autograft group).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recurrence of pterygium, with complications as the secondary outcome measure (ie, signs of limbal stem cell deficiency).
RESULTS: With a mean follow-up of 62 (range, 36-96) months, 10 patients (10.0%) in the conjunctival autograft group and 1 patient (1.0%) in the limbal-conjunctival autograft group developed recurrence. No signs of limbal stem cell deficiency were observed during follow-up.
CONCLUSION: Limbal-conjunctival transplant is safe and more effective than free conjunctival transplant in preventing recurrence after excision of recurrent pterygia (P = .004).
APPLICATION TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Limbal-conjunctival autografts could be a favored option for managing advanced recurrent pterygia in young high-risk patients.