EC Ophthalmology

The objective of this study is to demonstrate the use and effectiveness of the technique with autoplasty fixed with bipolar cautery compared with autoplasty fixed with stitches in pterygium surgery in patients diagnosed with primary pterygium at the La Selva Ophthalmological Clinic. The study was analytical, cross-sectional, retrospective, divided into two populations, the first group being 40 patients operated on using the electrocautery technique and the second group made up of 40 patients operated on using the conventional technique. Patient data was collected at 24 postoperative hours, 72 hours, one month and the sixth month to assess symptoms and incidence of recurrence. The results obtained were where those operated on with 10/0 nylon sutures presented 82.5% tearing, 80% felt a foreign body followed by 77.5% pain/burning compared to the group operated with electrocautery who presented 15% burning and tearing followed by 12.5% pain/burning. Concluding that the symptomatology decreases considerably, which leads to a postoperative recovery with greater efficiency and better taken by the patient.

Keywords: Pterygium; Cauterization; Autograft; Technique

1. Mutlu FM., et al. “A comparative study of recurrent pterygium surgery”. Ophthalmology 106 (1999): 817-821.
2. Altan-Yaycioglu R., et al. “Astigmatic changes following pterygium removal: comparison of 5 different methods”. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 61 (2013): 104-108.
3. Jaros PA and De luise VP. “Pingecula and pterygium”. Surgery Ophthalmology (1988).
4. Fernades AG., et al. “Pterygium in adults from the Brazilian Amazon Region: prevalence, visual status and refractive errors”. British Journal of Ophthalmology 6 (2021): 757-763.
5. Cárdenas-Cantú E., et al. “Molecular Basis of Pterygium Development”. Seminars in Ophthalmology 31 (2016): 567-583.
6. Liu L., et al. “Geographical prevalence and risk factors for pterygium: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. BMJ Open 3 (2013): e003787.
7. Clearfield E., et al. “Conjunctival autograft for pterygium”. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2 (2016): CD011349.
8. Romano V., et al. “Fibrin glue versus sutures for conjunctival autografting in primary pterygium surgery”. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 12 (2016): CD011308.
9. Kenyon KR., et al. “Conjunctival autograft transplantation for advanced and recurrent pterygium”. Ophthalmology 92 (1985): 1461-1470.
10. Prabhasawat P., et al. “Comparison of conjunctival autografts, amniotic membrane grafts, and primary closure for pterygium excision”. Ophthalmology 104 (1997): 974-985.
11. Kumar LCSV., et al. “Conjunctival limbal autograft transplantation in pterygium surgery by natural hemostasis”. Medical Journal Armed Forces India 71 (2015): S43-S45.
12. Xu F., et al. “A novel technique of sutureless and glueless conjunctival autografting in pterygium surgery by electrocautery pen”. Cornea 32 (2013): 290-295.
13. Mejia LF., et al. “Comparison of 4 techniques for limbal-conjunctival autograft fixation in primary pterygium surgery”. European Journal of Ophthalmology 27 (2017): 466-469.
14. Lešin M., et al. “Cauterisation versus fibrin glue for conjunctival autografting in primary pterygium surgery (CAGE CUP): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial”. BMJ Open 8 (2018): e020714.
15. Costa FQ., et al. “Pterygium Surgery with Conjunctival Autograft Fixation Using Bipolar Electrocauterization”. European Journal of Ophthalmology 3 (2021): 1458-1462.
16. Pan HW., et al. “Comparison of fibrin glue versus suture for conjunctival autografting in pterygium surgery: a meta-analysis”. Ophthalmology 118 (2011): 1049-1054.
17. Maiti R., et al. “Recurrence rate and graft stability with fibrin glue compared with suture and autologous blood coagulum for conjunctival autograft adherence in pterygium surgery: a meta-analysis”. Cornea 36 (2017): 1285-1294.