• Users Online: 131
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 139-143

Subconjunctival bevacizumab injection versus mitomycin C application after primary pterygium surgery

Ophthalmology Department, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
MD Hani A Albialy
Ophthalmology Department, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/DJO.DJO_20_19

Rights and Permissions

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare subconjunctival bevacizumab injection and mitomycin C (MMC) application after primary pterygium surgery in terms of recurrence rates and complications. Patients and methods This prospective comparative clinical study included 90 eyes of 90 patients with primary pterygium who underwent excision with bare sclera technique. Patients were randomized into three groups: group A (30 eyes), in which MMC 0.02% was applied to the bare scleral area for 3 min; group B (30 eyes), which received 2.5 mg/0.1 ml subconjunctival bevacizumab injection at the end of surgery; and group C (30 eyes), which was used as a control group and did not receive any adjuvant medications after pterygium excision. Patients were followed up for 6 months, and the recurrence rates of pterygium and any complications were reported. Results At 6 months after surgery, the recurrence rates in the three groups were as follows: two (6.7%) eyes in the MMC group A, two (6.7%) eyes in the bevacizumab group B, and 11 (36.7%) eyes in the control group C, with a significant difference among groups (P=0.01). No serious complications, except subconjunctival hemorrhage, were observed in all groups. Conclusion Groups receiving topical 0.02% MMC and 2.5 mg/0.1 ml subconjunctival bevacizumab injections after surgery showed lower recurrence rates than the control group. However, no difference in the recurrence rate was observed between both groups.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded111    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal