SynthesisBMJ open ophthalmology2024
Modified sutureless and glue-free method versus conventional sutures for conjunctival autograft fixation in primary pterygium surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Clinical outcomes of pterygium surgery over a ten-year period: a review of recurrence and complication rates.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPterygium is a common ocular surface disorder that requires surgical intervention for treatment. Conjunctival autografts are preferred over simple excision due to lower recurrence rates. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the modified sutureless glue-free (MSGF) method with conventional sutures (CS) for conjunctival autograft fixation in primary pterygium surgery.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MSGF and CS conjunctival autografts. Outcome measures included operation time, recurrence and postoperative complications. Standardised mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) were used for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively.
results11 RCTs involving 833 participants were included. The analysis revealed that MSGF had a significantly shorter operation time compared with CS (SMD -3.704, 95% CI -5.122 to -2.287, p<0.001). CS was associated with a higher risk of foreign body sensation (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.74, p=0.01). MSGF was associated with a higher risk of graft dehiscence (RR 9.01, 95% CI 2.74 to 29.68, p=0.000) and graft retraction (RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.77, p=0.02). No significant differences were found in recurrence, graft haemorrhage, granuloma, Dellen and conjunctival oedema.
conclusionUsing the MSGF technique in conjunctival autograft fixation for pterygium surgery reduces operation time by relying solely on the patient's blood for fixation. However, it increases the risk of graft dehiscence and retraction. However, CS is linked to a higher likelihood of experiencing foreign body sensations. Understanding the learning curve and surgeon familiarity with novel techniques is crucial for optimising patient care and surgical outcomes, while individualised decision-making is necessary considering the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Further research is warranted to minimise complications and optimise surgical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.