Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective observational study characterizes conjunctival and eyelid lesions in a public health setting, emphasizing the need for early diagnosis.
Introduction: Conjunctival and eyelid lesions encompass a broad spectrum of conditions, ranging from benign entities to malignant neoplasms, and may significantly impact ocular health and quality of life. Their occurrence is influenced by environmental exposure, demographic characteristics, and access to healthcare services. In public health settings, delayed diagnosis and limited access to specialized care may contribute to disease progression. Objective: To characterize the clinical and epidemiological profile of conjunctival and eyelid lesions in patients treated at a referral ophthalmology service within the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). Methods: This retrospective observational study reviewed medical records of patients diagnosed with conjunctival and/or eyelid lesions during ophthalmologic screening campaigns. Clinical and demographic variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics to assess prevalence and distribution patterns. Results: A total of 66 patients were included. Conjunctival involvement predominated (78.8%), with the nasal region being the most frequently affected location (62.1%). Pterygium was the most prevalent diagnosis (31.8%), followed by racial melanosis (15.2%) and melanocytic nevus (12.1%). No statistically significant differences were observed according to sex or lesion laterality. However, a significant association was identified between lesion type and anatomical location. Conclusions: Conjunctival and eyelid lesions in this population were predominantly benign and associated with demographic and environmental factors. These findings highlight the importance of structured screening strategies and early diagnosis to improve clinical outcomes and support public health policies aimed at reducing the burden of ocular disease within the SUS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mascarós et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: