Jian Liu1, Jie-Hui Xu1, Wen Xu2, Guan-Lu Liang1, Ji-Xian Lou1, Yi Wang1, Ji-Quan Wen1, Yong-Bao Cao1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Zhejiang Hospital, Hangzhou 310012, Zhejiang Province, China. 2. Eye Center, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, College of Medicine, Hangzhou 310009, Zhejiang Province, China.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the clinical effect of bevacizumab in pterygium treatment. METHODS: A systematic review and quantitative Meta-analysis was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane database were searched for eligible literatures published in English until June 2016. The endpoint was recurrence rate and pooled risk ratio (RR) was calculated. RESULTS: Nine eligible studies were included and Meta-analysis results showed no significantly difference in patients treated with bevacizumab in short term follow-up [3mo: RR=0.70 (0.34, 1.45); 6mo: RR=0.55 (0.23, 1.32)] compared with control groups. No significant effects were observed in favor of bevacizumab in subgroup analyses: patients with subconjunctival injection of bevacizumab [3mo: RR=0.95 (0.70, 1.29); 6mo: RR=0.83 (0.55, 1.28)], primary pterygium [3mo: RR=0.59 (0.23, 1.54; 6mo: RR=0.59 (0.23, 1.53)], simple pterygium excision [3mo: 0.32 (0.05, 2.04), P=0.23; 6mo: 0.27 (0.05, 1.53)] and excision with conjunctival autograft [3mo: 1.51 (0.25, 9.15); 6mo: 1.11 (0.06, 21.69)]. CONCLUSION: In this Meta-analysis, we did not found the significant effect of bevacizumab in pterygium treatment, at least in short term follow-up (3mo and 6mo).
AIM: To evaluate the clinical effect of bevacizumab in pterygium treatment. METHODS: A systematic review and quantitative Meta-analysis was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane database were searched for eligible literatures published in English until June 2016. The endpoint was recurrence rate and pooled risk ratio (RR) was calculated. RESULTS: Nine eligible studies were included and Meta-analysis results showed no significantly difference in patients treated with bevacizumab in short term follow-up [3mo: RR=0.70 (0.34, 1.45); 6mo: RR=0.55 (0.23, 1.32)] compared with control groups. No significant effects were observed in favor of bevacizumab in subgroup analyses: patients with subconjunctival injection of bevacizumab [3mo: RR=0.95 (0.70, 1.29); 6mo: RR=0.83 (0.55, 1.28)], primary pterygium [3mo: RR=0.59 (0.23, 1.54; 6mo: RR=0.59 (0.23, 1.53)], simple pterygium excision [3mo: 0.32 (0.05, 2.04), P=0.23; 6mo: 0.27 (0.05, 1.53)] and excision with conjunctival autograft [3mo: 1.51 (0.25, 9.15); 6mo: 1.11 (0.06, 21.69)]. CONCLUSION: In this Meta-analysis, we did not found the significant effect of bevacizumab in pterygium treatment, at least in short term follow-up (3mo and 6mo).