Cosmetic outcome of femtosecond laser-assisted pterygium surgery.

Cosmesis Cosmetic outcome Femtosecond laser Pterygium Pterygium surgery

Journal

Eye and vision (London, England)
ISSN: 2326-0254
Titre abrégé: Eye Vis (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101664982

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 Mar 2021
Historique:
received: 24 05 2020
accepted: 15 02 2021
entrez: 6 3 2021
pubmed: 7 3 2021
medline: 7 3 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To examine the cosmetic outcome of femtosecond laser-assisted pterygium surgery (FLAPS) with conjunctival autograft (CAG) and its potential predictive factors. This was a prospective interventional case series (NCT02866968). We included 29 patients (29 eyes) with primary pterygium who underwent FLAPS. Cosmetic outcome was graded by two graders (an ophthalmology resident and an experienced ophthalmologist) using Hirst classification system (1-4 = excellent-poor). Weighted Cohen's kappa analysis was performed to examine the intra- and inter-rater reliability. The relationship between cosmetic outcome and various factors were determined by Spearman's correlation coefficients (r). The preoperative severity of pterygium (Tan grading system) was mild/atrophic (7%), moderate/intermediate (62%), and severe/fleshy (31%). An ultrathin CAG (mean thickness of 74.5 ± 9.8 μm) was fashioned intraoperatively. An excellent cosmetic outcome of FLAPS (median ± IQR) was observed at 3 months (1.0 ± 1.0) and remained similar at 6 months (1.0 ± 0.0) and 12 months (1.0 ± 0.0) postoperatively. At final follow-up, 27 (93%) patients achieved good-to-excellent cosmetic outcome, with 1 (3%) patient having a poor outcome due to incomplete pterygium removal. Weighted kappa analysis of Hirst grading system showed excellent intra-rater (κ = 0.86-0.95) and inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.84-0.88). There was a weak and borderline significant correlation between good cosmetic outcome and reduced postoperative CAG thickness (r = 0.38, P = 0.06) but not with age, gender, preoperative pterygium severity, or intraoperative CAG thickness. FLAPS can result in an excellent cosmetic outcome, which may be attributed to the beneficial effect of an ultrathin CAG. ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02866968 . Registered in July 2016.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
To examine the cosmetic outcome of femtosecond laser-assisted pterygium surgery (FLAPS) with conjunctival autograft (CAG) and its potential predictive factors.
METHODS METHODS
This was a prospective interventional case series (NCT02866968). We included 29 patients (29 eyes) with primary pterygium who underwent FLAPS. Cosmetic outcome was graded by two graders (an ophthalmology resident and an experienced ophthalmologist) using Hirst classification system (1-4 = excellent-poor). Weighted Cohen's kappa analysis was performed to examine the intra- and inter-rater reliability. The relationship between cosmetic outcome and various factors were determined by Spearman's correlation coefficients (r).
RESULTS RESULTS
The preoperative severity of pterygium (Tan grading system) was mild/atrophic (7%), moderate/intermediate (62%), and severe/fleshy (31%). An ultrathin CAG (mean thickness of 74.5 ± 9.8 μm) was fashioned intraoperatively. An excellent cosmetic outcome of FLAPS (median ± IQR) was observed at 3 months (1.0 ± 1.0) and remained similar at 6 months (1.0 ± 0.0) and 12 months (1.0 ± 0.0) postoperatively. At final follow-up, 27 (93%) patients achieved good-to-excellent cosmetic outcome, with 1 (3%) patient having a poor outcome due to incomplete pterygium removal. Weighted kappa analysis of Hirst grading system showed excellent intra-rater (κ = 0.86-0.95) and inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.84-0.88). There was a weak and borderline significant correlation between good cosmetic outcome and reduced postoperative CAG thickness (r = 0.38, P = 0.06) but not with age, gender, preoperative pterygium severity, or intraoperative CAG thickness.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
FLAPS can result in an excellent cosmetic outcome, which may be attributed to the beneficial effect of an ultrathin CAG.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02866968 . Registered in July 2016.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33673873
doi: 10.1186/s40662-021-00230-w
pii: 10.1186/s40662-021-00230-w
pmc: PMC7936441
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02866968']

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

7

Références

Ocul Surf. 2017 Apr;15(2):211-217
pubmed: 27919798
Electron Physician. 2017 Dec 25;9(12):5877-5884
pubmed: 29560137
Am J Pathol. 2011 Feb;178(2):817-27
pubmed: 21281814
Surv Ophthalmol. 2018 Sep - Oct;63(5):719-735
pubmed: 29551597
Arch Ophthalmol. 2012 Jan;130(1):39-49
pubmed: 22232474
Arch Ophthalmol. 1997 Oct;115(10):1235-40
pubmed: 9338666
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2016 Jan;27(1):76-81
pubmed: 26632918
Am J Ophthalmol. 2019 Nov;207:151-158
pubmed: 30959005
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Jan;94(4):e518
pubmed: 25634207
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 02;12:CD011308
pubmed: 27911983
Br J Ophthalmol. 2010 Jul;94(7):815-20
pubmed: 19515643
Ophthalmology. 2011 Sep;118(9):1739-46
pubmed: 21640383
Prog Retin Eye Res. 2004 Mar;23(2):195-228
pubmed: 15094131
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82
pubmed: 23092060
Br J Ophthalmol. 2006 Jul;90(7):883-8
pubmed: 16782950
Ophthalmology. 2012 Nov;119(11):2205-10
pubmed: 22892149
Eye (Lond). 2019 Oct;33(10):1672-1674
pubmed: 31168058
Ophthalmology. 2009 Jul;116(7):1278-86
pubmed: 19576496
Ophthalmology. 1997 Jun;104(6):974-85
pubmed: 9186439
J Formos Med Assoc. 2017 Jan;116(1):10-17
pubmed: 26868168
Ocul Surf. 2014 Apr;12(2):112-9
pubmed: 24725323
Br J Ophthalmol. 2000 Apr;84(4):385-9
pubmed: 10729295
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2019 Jul;30(4):256-263
pubmed: 31033736
Sci Rep. 2020 Feb 14;10(1):2674
pubmed: 32060326
Cornea. 2017 Jul;36(7):889-892
pubmed: 28489723
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017 Feb;255(2):375-385
pubmed: 27761704
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013 Jul 12;54(7):4705-9
pubmed: 23744999
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 11;2:CD011349
pubmed: 26867004
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013 Nov;39(11):1647-52
pubmed: 24054977
Anesth Analg. 2018 May;126(5):1763-1768
pubmed: 29481436
Psychol Bull. 1968 Oct;70(4):213-20
pubmed: 19673146
Cornea. 2007 May;26(4):407-13
pubmed: 17457187
Br J Ophthalmol. 2020 Aug 11;:
pubmed: 32788329

Auteurs

Darren Shu Jeng Ting (DSJ)

Academic Ophthalmology, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Department of Ophthalmology, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore.

Yu-Chi Liu (YC)

Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore.
Singapore National Eye Centre, 11 Third Hospital Avenue, Singapore, 168751, Singapore.
Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.

Yi Fang Lee (YF)

Singapore National Eye Centre, 11 Third Hospital Avenue, Singapore, 168751, Singapore.

Angel Jung Se Ji (AJS)

Singapore National Eye Centre, 11 Third Hospital Avenue, Singapore, 168751, Singapore.

Tien-En Tan (TE)

Singapore National Eye Centre, 11 Third Hospital Avenue, Singapore, 168751, Singapore.

Hla M Htoon (HM)

Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.

Jodhbir S Mehta (JS)

Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore. jodhbir.s.mehta@singhealth.com.sg.
Singapore National Eye Centre, 11 Third Hospital Avenue, Singapore, 168751, Singapore. jodhbir.s.mehta@singhealth.com.sg.
Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. jodhbir.s.mehta@singhealth.com.sg.

Classifications MeSH