Advertisement

Fifteen-year results of a randomized controlled trial comparing 0.02% mitomycin C, limbal conjunctival autograft, and combined mitomycin C with limbal conjunctival autograft in recurrent pterygium surgery

  • Ka Wai Kam
  • Alvin L. YoungEmail author
Cornea
  • 47 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the long-term outcomes of recurrent pterygium surgery between three different techniques.

Methods

We performed a 15-year follow-up study of a randomized controlled study on surgical management of recurrent pterygium. Group 1 received limbal conjunctival autograft (LCAU); group 2 received intraoperative mitomycin C (MMC) 0.02% for 5 min; and group 3 received combined LCAU + MMC 0.02% for 5 min. Consecutive patients enrolled in the original study (from April 2001 to March 2003) were invited back for a detailed clinical examination to document the long-term outcomes. The main outcome measures included the recurrence rate, residual conjunctival bed status, and complications from any of the surgical methods.

Results

Sixty-two patients were recruited in the original study. Eight patients had passed away and 12 patients were uncontactable or not responded. One patient who had bilateral operations refused to return for follow-up and one eye had insufficient data for analysis. Finally, 40 eyes of 40 patients were included for analyses. One eye developed a recurrence over 15 years and none required a tertiary pterygium operation. The patient received LCAU for a temporal recurrent pterygium developed a 2.2-mm recurrence.

Conclusions

All three techniques yielded favorable outcomes for patients with recurrent pterygium. The use of LCAU was associated with better cosmetic outcome.

Keywords

Cornea Limbal conjunctival autograft Mitomycin C Randomized controlled trial Recurrent pterygium 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Joint Chinese University of Hong Kong–New Territories East Cluster Clinical Research Ethics and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Young AL, Cao D, Chu WK, Ng TK, Yip YWY, Jhanji V, Pang CP (2018) The evolving story of pterygium. Cornea 37(Suppl 1):S55–S57.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000001744 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen PP, Ariyasu RG, Kaza V, LaBree LD, McDonnell PJ (1995) A randomized trial comparing mitomycin C and conjunctival autograft after excision of primary pterygium. Am J Ophthalmol 120:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tsim NC, Young AL, Jhanji V, Ho M, Cheng LL (2015) Combined conjunctival rotational autograft with 0.02% mitomycin C in primary pterygium surgery: a long-term follow-up study. Br J Ophthalmol 99:1396–1400.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305817 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Young AL, Yeung JC, Leung AT, Wong AK, Cheng LL, Lam DS (2002) Pterygium excision and conjunctival mini-autograft. Eye 16:110–111.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6700080 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Misra S, Craig JP, McGhee CN, Patel DV (2014) A prospective study of pterygium excision and conjunctival autograft with human fibrin tissue adhesive: effects on vision, refraction, and corneal topography. Asia-Pac J Ophthalmol 3:202–206.  https://doi.org/10.1097/APO.0000000000000006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lekhanont K, Patarakittam T, Thongphiew P, Suwan-apichon O, Hanutsaha P (2012) Randomized controlled trial of subconjunctival bevacizumab injection in impending recurrent pterygium: a pilot study. Cornea 31:155–161.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e3182151e0e CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Altiparmak UE, Katircioglu YA, Yagci R, Yalniz Z, Duman S (2007) Mitomycin C and conjunctival autograft for recurrent pterygium. Int Ophthalmol 27:339–343.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-007-9085-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shehadeh-Mashor R, Srinivasan S, Boimer C, Lee K, Tomkins O, Slomovic AR (2011) Management of recurrent pterygium with intraoperative mitomycin C and conjunctival autograft with fibrin glue. Am J Ophthalmol 152:730–732.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2011.04.034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clearfield E, Hawkins BS, Kuo IC (2017) Conjunctival autograft versus amniotic membrane transplantation for treatment of pterygium: findings from a cochrane systematic review. Am J Ophthalmol 182:8–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.07.004 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mutlu FM, Sobaci G, Tatar T, Yildirim E (1999) A comparative study of recurrent pterygium surgery: limbal conjunctival autograft transplantation versus mitomycin C with conjunctival flap. Ophthalmology 106:817–821.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(99)90172-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wan Norliza WM, Raihan IS, Azwa JA, Ibrahim M (2006) Scleral melting 16 years after pterygium excision with topical Mitomycin C adjuvant therapy. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 29:165–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2006.08.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ti SE, Tan DT (2003) Tectonic corneal lamellar grafting for severe scleral melting after pterygium surgery. Ophthalmology 110:1126–1136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00260-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Young AL, Leung GY, Wong AK, Cheng LL, Lam DS (2004) A randomised trial comparing 0.02% mitomycin C and limbal conjunctival autograft after excision of primary pterygium. Br J Ophthalmol 88:995–997.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2003.036830 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Young AL, Ho M, Jhanji V, Cheng LL (2013) Ten-year results of a randomized controlled trial comparing 0.02% mitomycin C and limbal conjunctival autograft in pterygium surgery. Ophthalmology 120:2390–2395.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.05.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prabhasawat P, Barton K, Burkett G, Tseng SC (1997) Comparison of conjunctival autografts, amniotic membrane grafts, and primary closure for pterygium excision. Ophthalmology 104:974–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh G, Wilson MR, Foster CS (1988) Mitomycin eye drops as treatment for pterygium. Ophthalmology 95:813–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singh G, Wilson MR, Foster CS (1990) Long-term follow-up study of mitomycin eye drops as adjunctive treatment of pterygia and its comparison with conjunctival autograft transplantation. Cornea 9:331–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mastropasqua L, Carpineto P, Ciancaglini M, Enrico Gallenga P (1996) Long term results of intraoperative mitomycin C in the treatment of recurrent pterygium. Br J Ophthalmol 80:288–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rubinfeld RS, Pfister RR, Stein RM, Foster CS, Martin NF, Stoleru S, Talley AR, Speaker MG (1992) Serious complications of topical mitomycin-C after pterygium surgery. Ophthalmology 99:1647–1654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Luanratanakorn P, Ratanapakorn T, Suwan-Apichon O, Chuck RS (2006) Randomised controlled study of conjunctival autograft versus amniotic membrane graft in pterygium excision. Br J Ophthalmol 90:1476–1480.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2006.095018 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kucukerdonmez C, Akova YA, Altinors DD (2007) Comparison of conjunctival autograft with amniotic membrane transplantation for pterygium surgery: surgical and cosmetic outcome. Cornea 26:407–413.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e318033b3d4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Masters JS, Harris DJ Jr (2015) Low recurrence rate of pterygium after excision with conjunctival limbal autograft: a retrospective study with long-term follow-up. Cornea 34:1569–1572.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000000597 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Katircioglu YA, Altiparmak U, Engur Goktas S, Cakir B, Singar E, Ornek F (2015) Comparison of two techniques for the treatment of recurrent pterygium: amniotic membrane vs conjunctival autograft combined with mitomycin C. Semin Ophthalmol 30:321–327.  https://doi.org/10.3109/08820538.2013.874468 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kheirkhah A, Hashemi H, Adelpour M, Nikdel M, Rajabi MB, Behrouz MJ (2012) Randomized trial of pterygium surgery with mitomycin C application using conjunctival autograft versus conjunctival-limbal autograft. Ophthalmology 119:227–232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.08.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Anguria P, Ntuli S, Carmichael T (2014) Young patient's age determines pterygium recurrence after surgery. Afr Health Sci 14:72–76.  https://doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v14i1.11 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rao SK, Lekha T, Mukesh BN, Sitalakshmi G, Padmanabhan P (1998) Conjunctival-limbal autografts for primary and recurrent pterygia: technique and results. Indian J Ophthalmol 46:203–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ti SE, Chee SP, Dear KB, Tan DT (2000) Analysis of variation in success rates in conjunctival autografting for primary and recurrent pterygium. Br J Ophthalmol 84:385–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology & Visual SciencesPrince of Wales HospitalShatinHong Kong
  2. 2.Department of Ophthalmology & Visual SciencesThe Chinese University of Hong KongShatinHong Kong

Personalised recommendations