Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Multiple conjunctival autografts from the contralateral eye for management of recurrent symblepharon in eyes with unilateral chemical burn
  1. Shayeri Ganguly1,
  2. Supriya Sharma1,2,
  3. Charul Singh1 and
  4. Swapna S Shanbhag1
  1. 1 Shantilal Shanghvi Cornea Institute, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
  2. 2 Department of Cornea and Anterior Segment Services, Shantilal Shanghvi Eye Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
  1. Correspondence to Dr Swapna S Shanbhag; swapnashanbhag{at}


We present two cases which underwent complex ocular surface reconstruction to achieve a stable ocular surface. Conjunctival autograft (CAG) procedure was required more than once, in addition to simple limbal epithelial transplantation to address extensive symblepharon in the eyes with total unilateral limbal stem cell deficiency secondary to acid ocular burns. These cases demonstrate that multiple CAGs may be harvested from the contralateral unaffected eye to correct recurrent symblepharon without any donor site complications if the correct surgical technique is adopted.

  • Eye
  • Anterior chamber

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors The following authors were responsible for drafting of the text, sourcing and editing of clinical images, investigation results, drawing original diagrams and algorithms, and critical revision for important intellectual content: SG, SS, CS, SSS. The following authors gave final approval of the manuscript: SG, SS, CS, SSS.

  • Funding This study was funded by Hyderabad Eye Research Foundation. The funding organisation had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

  • Case reports provide a valuable learning resource for the scientific community and can indicate areas of interest for future research. They should not be used in isolation to guide treatment choices or public health policy.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.