Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
© 2022 Indian Journal of Ophthalmology | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Original Article
Sutureless and glue-free limbal-conjunctival autograft in primary and
recurrent pterygium: A pilot study
Vikas Sharma, Ankuj Tinna1, Anuradha Singh2, Atul K Singh, Vikas Ambiya3
Access this article online
Website:
www.ijo.in
DOI:
10.4103/ijo.IJO_1895_21
PMID:
*****
Quick Response Code:
Purpose:
Methods:
total
n
nResults:
P
P
P
Conclusion:
pterygium.
Key words:
1Department
2Department
3Department of
[1][2]
[3] are thought
[4]
[5]
[6]
[11]
Methods
Inclusion criteria
Patients of all ages and either sex with primary nasal pterygium
Cite this article as: Sharma V, Tinna A, Singh A, Singh AK, Ambiya V.
Sutureless and glue-free limbal-conjunctival autograft in primary and recurrent
pterygium: A pilot study. Indian J Ophthalmol 2022;70:783-7.
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 4.0 License,
which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non‑commercially,
as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under
the identical terms.
For reprints contact: WKHLRPMedknow_reprints@wolterskluwer.com
Exclusion criteria
pterygium. The goals of the pterygium surgery were
Surgical procedure
Fig. 1a].
2.
Figure 1: Steps of SLGF‑‑LCAG surgery. (a) Cleaning of anterior surface (b) Marking of pterygium (c) Ballooning of pterygium (d) Excision of
pterygium (e) Avulsion of pterygium from corneal surface (f) Marking the graft (g) Separation of the graft from tenon by inltration (h) Dissection
of the graft (i) Spreading the graft over cornea after excision (j and k) Spreading out the graft over recepient area (l) Well adhered graft on
completion of procedure
d
h
c
g
b
f
a
e
k l
i j
Sharma, et al.: Sutureless and glue‑free limbal‑conjunctival autografting in primary and recurrent pterygium: A pilot study
Statistical analysis
P value less than
Results
P
P
P
Discussion
Table 1: Summary of the demographic data and results
Group 1 (Primary pterygium group) Group 2 (Recurrent pterygium group)
No of patients (n) 45 25
Male 25 16
Female 20 09
Age, range (years) 24‑54 22‑45
Age mean±SD 37.0±8.69 32.52±6.49
Recurrence, no. of patients (%) Nil 2 (8%)
Best‑corrected visual acuity (ETDRS VAS±SD)
Baseline
Final
78.733±9.86
80.15±7.29
79.6±6.44
79.8±5.86
Graft‑related complications
Graft edema
Graft retraction
Graft loss
Cyst
7 (15.55%)
2 (4.44%)
0
0
4 (16%)
3 (12%)
0
2 (8%)
Figure 3: Well‑adhered autograft after 48 h of eye patching postoperatively
[21]
[22]
Foroutan et al.[21]
et al[23] Singh et al[24]
et al[25] Kulthe et al.[26] Sharma et al and Mitra, are
the aggravated tissue response related to the younger age
authors.
et al.
Figure 2: Complications. (a) Graft edema (b) Graft retraction (c) Tenon cyst (d) Early recurrence (e) Advance recurrence
d
c
b
a
e
Sharma, et al.: Sutureless and glue‑free limbal‑conjunctival autografting in primary and recurrent pterygium: A pilot study
of the graft [Fig. 3
graft loss are minimal.
Conclusion
Financial support and sponsorship
Conicts of interest
References
et al
et al
et al. in situ
Fixation in Pterygium Surgery. Poster Presented at the Annual
