Comparación: injerto libre o cierre primario más lente de contacto, en resección de tumores de conjuntiva limbar


Autoria(s): Moreno Londoño, Maria Victoria
Contribuinte(s)

Salazar Guaragna, Pedro Felipe

Data(s)

06/12/2012

Resumo

INTRODUCCION: Existe controversia en cuanto a la técnica quirúrgica para el manejo de tumores del limbo conjuntival. El uso de cierre primario con uso de lente de contacto puede ofrecer una mejor cicatrización y tener ventajas adicionales sobre la técnica tradicional con el uso de plastia. OBJETIVOS: Comparar los resultados en cuanto a grado de dolor, picadas, prurito, porcentaje de epitelización y cicatrización, comodidad del paciente, grado de quemosis y tiempo de retorno a actividades diarias en ambas técnicas quirúrgicas. MATERIALES Y METODOS: Experimento clínico controlado aleatorizado en dos grupos: Al primer grupo se le realizó cirugía de resección de la lesión más plastia. Al segundo grupo se le practicó la resección de la lesión cierre primario y lente de contacto. El seguimiento se realizó al primer y cuarto día, y cada semana durante el primer mes de postoperatorio. Se utilizó el SPSS 20.0 ® para análisis estadístico de datos y se utilizó estadística no paramétrica. RESULTADOS: Se conto con 10 pacientes por grupo. El dolor y porcentaje de cicatrización al primer día postoperatorio fueron mayores en el grupo usando lente de contacto (p=0.048). Al cuarto día postquirúrgico se encontró un mayor porcentaje de cicatrización en el grupo usando lente de contacto. (p=0.075). CONCLUSIONES: El cierre por afrontamiento con uso de lente de contacto mostró dolor y picadas mayores al primer y cuarto día postoperatorio. Pero la epitelización y cicatrización fueron tempranas con un retorno corto a actividades cotidianas.

Fundación Oftalmológica Nacional

INTRODUCTION: Controversy exists regarding the surgical technique for the man-agement of conjunctival limbal tumors. The primary close of the conjuntiva with contact lens use can offer better healing and have additional advantages over the traditional technique using free graft. OBJECTIVES: To compare the results in terms of degree of pain, bites, itching, per-centage of epithelialization and wound healing, patient comfort, degree of chemosis and time of return to daily activities in both surgical techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: randomized controlled clinical trial with two groups: the first group underwent resection of the lesion with the use of free graft. The second group underwent resection of the lesion with primary closure and contact lens. They were followed the first and fourth day, and every week during the first month after surgery. We used SPSS 20.0 ® for statistical data analysis and nonparametric statistics were used. RESULTS: We had 10 patients per group. The percentage of pain and healing in the first postoperative day were higher in the group using contact lens (p = 0.048). On the fourth day after surgery we found a higher rate of healing in the group using contact lens. (p = 0.075). CONCLUSIONS: The primary close of the conjuntiva with contact lens use showed greater pain and itching the first and fourth day after surgery. But epithelialization and scarring were earlier with a short return to daily activities.

Formato

application/pdf

Identificador

http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/4095

Idioma(s)

spa

Publicador

Facultad de Medicina

Direitos

info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess

Fonte

reponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR

instname:Universidad del Rosario

1. Carol L. Shields, MD, and Jerry A. Shields, MD, Tumors of the Conjunctiva and Cornea Ocular Oncology Service, Wills Eye Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA survey of ophthalmology volume 49 • number 1 • January-february 2004

2. Grahan A. Lee, Mdds, and Lawrence W.Hirst, MD, Ocular Surface Squalors Neoplasm Division of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Survey of Opthalmology volume 39, number 6, May-June 1995.

3. Stefan Seregard, MD, P. Conjunctival Melanoma, Ophthalmic Pathology and Oncology Service, Saint Eriks Eye Hospital and Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden Survey of Opthal-mology volume 42 number 4 January-february 1998.

4. Flavio A. Marigo, MD, and Paul T. Finger, MD, Anterior Segment Tumors: Current Concepts and Innovations, The New York Eye Cancer Center; The Federal University of Minas Gerais and Instituto da Visa˜o, Belo Horizonte, Brazil; The New York Eye and Ear Infirmary; and the New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA Survey of Opthalmolo-gy volume 48 number 6, November-December 2003

5. Darius M. Moshfeghi, MD, Andrew A. Moshfeghi, MD, and Paul T. Finger, MD, Enucleation The New York Eye Cancer Center and the Ocular Tumor Service, New York Eye and Ear In-firmary, and Department of Ophthalmology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, , USA Survey of Opthalmology volume 44 number 4, January-february 2000

6. Arun d. Singh, MD, Otto E. Campos, MD, Ronald M. Rhatigan, MD, Joel A. Schulman, MD, and Raghunath P. Misra, MD, Conjunctival Melanoma in the Black Population, survey of ophthalmology volume 43, number 2, september–october 1998

7. Carol L. Shields, MD, and Jerry A. Shields, MD, Tumors of the Conjunctiva and Cornea Ocular Oncology Service, Wills Eye Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsyl-vania, usa. survey of ophthalmology volume 49 • number 1 • january–february 2004

8. Eduardo Arenas, M.D., and Sergio Garcia, A Scleral Soft Contact Lens Designed for the Postoperative Management of Pterygium Surgery, O.D. Eye & Contact Lens 33(1): 9–12, 2007

9. Artur Zembowicz, MD, PhD; Rajni V. Mandal, MD; Pitipol Choopong, MD, Melanocytic Le-sions of the Conjunctiva Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010 Dec;134(12):1785-92.

10. Othman IS. Kasr, Ocular surface tumors. El-Ainie Medical, School, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2009 Jan;2(1):3-14.

11. Paridaens AD, McCartney AC, Curling OM, Lyons CJ, Hungerford JL. Impression cytology of conjunctival melanosis and melanoma. Institute of Ophthalmology, Department of Pathology, London. Br J Ophthalmol. 1992 Apr;76(4):198-201.

12. Alkatan HM, Al-Arfaj KM, Maktabi A. Conjunctival nevi: Clinical and histopathologic features in a Saudi population. Department of Ocular Pathology, King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Hk tan@kkesh.med.sa Ann Saudi Med. 2010 Jul-Aug;30(4):306-12.

13. Kim JW, Abramson DH. Topical treatment options for conjunctival neoplasms. Ophthalmic On-cology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Clin Ophthalmol. 2008 Sep;2(3):503-15.

14. Shields JA, Shields CL, De Potter P. Surgical management of circumscribed conjunctival mela-nomas. Ocular Oncology Service, Wills Eye Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, PA 19107, USA. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998 May;14(3):208-15.

TEME 0103 2012

Palavras-Chave #CIRUGÍA DE LOS OJOS - INVESTIGACIONES #ENFERMEDADES DE LA CONJUNTIVA - TRATAMIENTO #NEOPLASIAS DE LA CONJUNTIVA - TRATAMIENTO #OFTALMOLOGÍA – INVESTIGACIONES #Contact lens #intraepithelial neoplasia #nevus #pigmented lesions
Tipo

info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis

info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion