Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Pterygium Extended Removal Followed by Extended Conjunctival Transplant: But on Which Eye?

Hirst, Lawrence W. MD, MPH*,†,‡

doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31827e2a7f
Clinical Science

Purpose: To assess the cosmetic result after pterygium extended removal followed by extended conjunctival transplant.

Methods: A web-based program was used by graders to select from a series of pairs of photographic images which eye of each pair had had pterygium surgery and which eye had the better appearance. A total of 395 pairs of eyes in which 1 eye had had pterygium surgery with the opposite eye acting as the control were assessed. Graders were asked the question “which eye has had surgery?” in sections 1 and 2, and then asked which “was the better looking eye?” for each pair, first at real-life size and then with magnified images in sections 3 and 4. Analysis was undertaken on the correlation of the selection of the eye that was thought to have had surgery with the eye that had actually had the surgery, and correlation between the eyes selected for the better appearance with the eyes that had had surgery.

Results: Thirteen graders completed the study and most graders correctly selected the operative eye in fewer than 50% of the pairs of eyes in sections 1 and 2. In addition, the operated eye was selected as the “better looking eye” in almost 40% of the pairs of eyes in sections 3 and 4.

Conclusions: Pterygium extended removal followed by extended conjunctival transplant results in an appearance that is indistinguishable from a normal eye.

*Queensland Eye Institute, Brisbane, Australia

University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

The Australian Pterygium Centre, Brisbane, Australia.

Reprints: Lawrence W. Hirst, The Australian Pterygium Centre, 232 Oxley Rd, Graceville, Queensland 4075, Australia (e-mail: lawrie@tapc.net.au).

Supported in part by the Prevent Blindness Foundation, Brisbane, Australia.

The author owns the trademark P.E.R.F.E.C.T. for PTERYGIUM. Prevent Blindness Foundation, Brisbane, Australia, had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

Received October 12, 2012

Accepted November 10, 2012

© 2013 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.