Topical anaesthesia for phacoemulsification surgery

Comparison of Topical Versus Sub-Tenon's Anesthesia in Phacoemulsification at a Tertiary Care Eye Hospital

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness of topical and sub-Tenon's anesthesia in providing pain relief during phacoemulsification.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial was carried out at a tertiary eye care hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Patients who underwent phacoemulsification through self-sealing clear corneal incision with foldable intra-ocular lens implantation were randomized into two groups. Group 1 (n = 100) received topical anesthesia with 0.5% proparacaine (Paracaine, Sunways India Pvt. Ltd., India) drops. Group 2 (n = 100) received sub-Tenon's infiltration with 2% lignocaine (Xylocaine, AstraZeneca Pharma India Pvt. Ltd., India). As per study criteria, patients graded the pain during administration of anesthesia, during surgery and after surgery on a visual analogue pain scale. The surgeon graded overall patient co-operation. The complications were also noted. Data analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 11. Student's t-test and Chi-square test were used for comparison of variables between the groups.

RESULTS

Sub-Tenon's anesthesia provided statistically significant better intra-operative pain relief and patient satisfaction than topical anesthesiat. No statistically significant difference was noted between the two groups regarding pain during administration, postoperative pain, and surgeon satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Sub-Tenon's anesthesia provides better pain relief than topical anesthesia during phacoemulsification.

Induction of apoptosis of rabbit corneal endothelial cells by preservative-free lidocaine hydrochloride 2%, ropivacaine 1%, or levobupivacaine 0.75%

PURPOSE

To determine and compare the amount of apoptosis and changes in rabbit corneal endothelial cell morphology after intracameral administration of different anesthetic agents.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Baskent University Medical Faculty, Ankara, Turkey.

METHODS

Right eyes of 64 Vienna white rabbits were injected intracamerally with preservative-free lidocaine hydrochloride 2%, ropivacaine 1%, levobupivacaine 0.75%, or fortified balanced salt solution (BSS Plus) (control). Animals were humanely killed 1 day or 7 days later. Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase deoxy-UTP-nick end labeling was used to detect apoptosis. Corneal endothelial cells and apoptotic cells were counted by light microscopy. The morphologic appearance was determined by transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

RESULTS

Apoptotic cell density was high in the anesthetic groups on day 1 (P<.01); there was no significant difference between groups at 7 days. Apoptotic cell density declined significantly between 1 day and 7 days in the anesthetic groups (P<.05) but not in the control group. There was no difference in endothelial cell density between the 4 groups at 1 or 7 days. All anesthetic groups showed degenerative changes on TEM, with the least change in the preservative-free lidocaine hydrochloride 2% group.

CONCLUSIONS

Intracameral injections of preservative-free lidocaine, ropivacaine, and levobupivacaine induced significantly more apoptotic endothelial cell loss than BSS Plus and led to morphologic changes in the corneal endothelial cells in the early period. This effect was temporary, with recovery by 7 days. Considering the limited proliferative capacity in human eyes, the induced apoptosis might result in the permanent cell loss and enlargement in human corneal endothelium.

Quality of vision after AMO Array multifocal intraocular lens implantation

PURPOSE

To evaluate safety and efficacy of Array SA40N multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (AMO) implantation in cataract surgery.

SETTING

Helsinki University Eye Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized comparative trial, 80 patients scheduled for cataract surgery were selected based on preoperative counseling and randomized to have multifocal or monofocal IOL implantation. Fifty-three eyes of 35 patients received a multifocal IOL and 67 eyes of 40 patients, a monofocal IOL. The incidence of complications and visual outcome in the multifocal and monofocal IOL groups were compared. Quality of vision was measured by comparing the severity of visual symptoms (glare, halos, and cataract symptoms score), changes in functional impairment measured by a 7-item visual function test (VF-7), changes in global measures of vision (trouble and satisfaction with vision), and range of accommodation and contrast sensitivity.

RESULTS

Intraoperative and postoperative complications and adverse events were few and required no further surgical intervention. Both distance and near visual acuities were significantly better in the multifocal group than in the monofocal group; the difference was most prominent in distance corrected near acuity (P<.001). Thirty-five eyes (67.3%) in the multifocal group and 10 eyes (14.9%) in the monofocal group achieved a distance corrected near acuity of J6 (20/40) or better; 30 eyes (56.6%) and 19 eyes (28.4%), respectively, achieved a best corrected distance acuity of 20/20 or better. Glare symptoms decreased postoperatively in both groups but were slightly more common in the multifocal group. In contrast, halos were significantly more common at 1 month in the multifocal group (P<.001). Contrast sensitivity values were slightly lower with multifocal IOLs at almost all spatial frequencies, but the difference was not significant. The change in the quality of life postoperatively, measured with the VF-7, was significant and identical in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pseudophakic eyes with multifocal IOLs had better distance and near acuity and range of accommodation than eyes with a monofocal IOL. Slightly lower contrast sensitivity and increased perception of halos by subjects with the multifocal IOL appear to be an acceptable compromise to enhanced near and distance vision.

Pain induced by phacoemulsification without sedation using topical or peribulbar anesthesia

PURPOSE

To evaluate patient-reported pain induced by phacoemulsification without sedation using topical or peribulbar anesthesia.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.

METHODS

This study assessed patient-perceived pain during phacoemulsification cataract surgery with peribulbar anesthesia (lidocaine 2%-bupivacaine 0.5% mixture) or with topical anesthesia (tetracaine drops); no patient received sedation. The same surgeon performed all surgeries using a clear corneal approach and in-the-bag intraocular lens implantation. Approximately 15 minutes after surgery, patients in the topical anesthesia group (n = 20) were asked to rate their pain during the procedure and patients in the peribulbar anesthesia group (n = 21), during infiltration of the anesthetic solution. Patients graded their pain using a 0- to 10-point visual analog scale (0 = no pain; 10 = unbearable pain). The results in the 2 groups were compared using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

The median pain score in the topical anesthesia group was 2 (range 0 to 5) and in the peribulbar anesthesia group, 3 (range 0 to 7). The mean rank in the topical anesthesia group (15.78) was significantly lower than the mean rank in the peribulbar anesthesia group (25.98) (P = .0057, Mann-Whitney U test).

CONCLUSION

In patients having phacoemulsification without sedation, those receiving peribulbar anesthesia reported more pain than those receiving topical anesthesia during anesthetic solution infiltration and during the procedure, respectively.

Effect of intracameral injection of lidocaine and carbachol on the rabbit corneal endothelium

PURPOSE

To determine the effect of intracameral injection of preservative-free lidocaine 1% and carbachol 0.01% on corneal endothelial cells of rabbits.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.

METHODS

Forty eyes of 20 New Zealand White rabbits were divided into 2 equal groups. In the first group, 1 eye was injected with 0.02 mL of preservative-free lidocaine 1% and the fellow eye was injected with 0.02 mL of normal saline as a control. In the second group, 1 eye was injected with 0.02 mL of carbachol 0.01% and the fellow eye was injected with 0.02 mL of normal saline. Specular microscopy was used to evaluate corneal endothelial cell loss and corneal thickness 1 week and 1 month postinjection. For morphologic studies, corneal buttons were excised and stained with alizarin red with trypan blue. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) examination was performed.

RESULTS

Specular microscopy revealed no significant endothelial cell loss and normal endothelial thickness with the intracameral injection of preservative-free lidocaine 1% and carbachol 0.01% compared with the control eye. Alizarin red with trypan blue stain and SEM examinations revealed smooth, distinct, and intact intercellular borders and normal viability of corneal endothelial cells in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Intracameral injections of preservative-free lidocaine 1% and carbachol 0.01% do not produce morphologic and functional changes in the corneal endothelial cells of rabbits.

Patient comfort during clear corneal phacoemulsification with sub-Tenon's local anesthesia

PURPOSE

To assess patient comfort with and without intravenous (i.v.) cannulation during 1-quadrant sub-Tenon's anesthesia during phacoemulsification.

SETTING

Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, Scotland, United Kingdom.

METHODS

This prospective masked controlled clinical trial comprised 119 patients having elective clear corneal phacoemulsification. Fifty had sub-Tenon's anesthesia with an i.v. cannula; 23, sub-Tenon's anesthesia without an i.v. cannula; and 46, topical anesthesia of proparacaine 0.5% without an i.v. cannula. No patient received sedation. All patients had clear corneal phacoemulsification with foldable posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. The patients' subjective pain experience was measured immediately after surgery by a single independent observer using a 10-point visual analog scale.

RESULTS

The mean patient-reported pain was low in all 3 groups. The mean i.v. cannula-related pain score in the sub-Tenon's group with an i.v. cannula (1.00; range 0 to 8) was higher than the mean general pain score (0.46; range 0 to 5) and worst pain experienced during surgery score (0.64; range 0 to 3). In the topical anesthesia group, 8 patients (17%) reported greater discomfort directly or indirectly related to the subconjunctival antibiotic injection at the end of surgery.

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported pain caused by placing an i.v. cannula in the sub-Tenon's group significantly altered overall patient comfort during the surgical experience. Thus, the routine use of i.v. access during clear corneal phacoemulsification under sub-Tenon's anesthesia should be avoided to improve patient satisfaction.

Viscoanesthesia. Part II: toxicity to intraocular structures after phacoemulsification in a rabbit model

PURPOSE

To investigate the toxicity of a solution that combines sodium hyaluronate 1.5% with lidocaine (0.5%, 1.0%, or 1.65%) to intraocular structures.

SETTING

Center for Research on Ocular Therapeutics and Biodevices, Storm Eye Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

METHODS

Phacoemulsification was performed in both eyes of 29 rabbits. They were divided into 3 groups; in each group (n = 7), 1 viscoanesthetic solution was used before capsulorhexis. After irrigation/aspiration, 0.2 mL of the solution was purposely left in the capsular bag. In 1 rabbit in each group, the solution was injected into the vitreous cavity through a posterior capsulorhexis. In 8 rabbits used as controls, balanced salt solution (BSS(R)) (n = 4) or sodium hyaluronate 1.5% (n = 4) was injected into the vitreous cavity. Enucleations were performed 15, 30, and 60 days postoperatively. Histological sections were cut and stained with hematoxylin-eosin, periodic acid-Schiff, and Masson trichrome stains.

RESULTS

Light microscopic evaluation of the eyes enucleated after 15, 30, and 60 days in the study and control groups showed similar findings in intraocular structures such as the ciliary body and retina. No evidence of an inflammatory reaction, cell necrosis, or cell degeneration was observed in the histological sections.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of viscoanesthesia during phacoemulsification appeared to be safe, with no histologic abnormalities observed with the 3 lidocaine concentrations. The efficacy of the anesthetic effects of these solutions will be addressed in clinical trials.

Immediately sequential phacoemulsification performed under topical anaesthesia as day case procedures

AIMS

To evaluate the visual outcome, safety, and economic benefits of immediately sequential phacoemulsification performed under topical anaesthesia as a day case procedure.

METHODS

Immediately sequential phacoemulsification under topical anaesthesia was performed as a day case procedure on 218 eyes of 109 patients over 21 months by a single senior surgeon using intracameral antibiotics. Case notes were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

The final best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 6/9 or better in 86% of eyes with 47% achieving 6/6 or better. The incidence of intraoperative complications was 0.45%. Postoperative complications occurred in 13.8% of eyes and included refractive error >1.00D from refractive aim (6.9%). Bilateral complications occurred in 5.5% of the patients. There were no cases of endophthalmitis. The mean time from surgery to discharge was 24 days.

CONCLUSION

Immediately sequential phacoemulsification under topical anaesthesia performed as a day case procedure is not associated with an increased number of complications when compared to unilateral phacoemulsification. Under strict surgical protocol with the use of intracameral antibiotics and performed by an experienced surgeon with a good track record this procedure is safe.

Patient-controlled analgesia and sedation with fentanyl in phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia

PURPOSE

To investigate the effects of intravenous (IV) patient-controlled sedation/analgesia with fentanyl during phacoemulsification surgery under topical anesthesia.

SETTING

Adnan Menderes University Medical School, Departments of Ophthalmology and Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Aydin, Turkey.

METHODS

In this double-blind randomized study, 68 patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups. In the fentanyl group comprising 34 patients, fentanyl was administered by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) equipment in 5 microg bolus doses with a lockout period of 5 minutes after an IV loading dose of 0.7 microg/kg in 2 mL balanced salt solution. In the control group comprising 34 patients, a balanced salt solution was given without an analgesic drug by PCA equipment. Verbal pain scale (VPS) and sedation scores were recorded preoperatively and 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes after the start of surgery. Patient comfort and surgeon satisfaction were assessed postoperatively.

RESULTS

The sedation score was higher in the fentanyl group than in the control group at 5 and 10 minutes (P =.006 and P =.012, respectively). The VPS scores were higher in the control group than in the fentanyl group at 15 and 20 minutes (P =.02 and P =.016, respectively). Patients pressed the button for additional analgesia 2.6 times +/- 3.9 (SD) in the control group and 0.9 +/- 1.6 times in the fentanyl group (P =.025). Patient and surgeon satisfaction were higher in the fentanyl group than the control group (P =.023 and P =.018, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that IV PCA with fentanyl has supplemental effects on analgesia and sedation during cataract surgery under topical anesthesia and increases patient comfort and surgeon satisfaction.

Topical anesthesia in phacotrabeculectomy

PURPOSE

To study the safety and efficacy of topical anesthesia alone, without systemic sedation, in phacotrabeculectomy for cataract and primary open-angle glaucoma.

METHODS

In this prospective study, topical anesthesia with 2% lidocaine hydrochloride jelly without systemic sedation was used for combined phacoemulsification, posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation, and trabeculectomy in consecutive patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and concurrent cataract at the United Christian Hospital, Kowloon, Hong Kong, from September 2000 to May 2001. Visual analog pain score and change in vital signs were used to assess the intraoperative pain experience. Other outcome measures included postoperative visual acuity and intraocular pressure at 3 months.

RESULTS

Twenty-two eyes of 22 consecutive patients were included in the study. The mean intraoperative pain score was 0.9 (range, 0-3). Three patients reported discomfort intraoperatively. No injection of supplementary anesthetic was required in any of the eyes. None of the patients had significant increase of pulse rate or blood pressure during the whole surgical procedure. Six patients required oral analgesic for postoperative discomfort. The mean preoperative medically treated IOP was 20.3 +/- 5.9 mm Hg and the mean postoperative IOP at 3 months was 14.4 +/- 4.7 mm Hg. All except two patients had improved visual acuity. There was no serious intraoperative or postoperative complication.

CONCLUSION

Topical 2% lidocaine hydrochloride jelly without systemic sedation may be a safe and effective anesthetic method in phacotrabeculectomy for patients with primary open-angle glaucoma with coexisting cataract.

Combined lidocaine 1% and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose 2.25% as a single anesthetic/ viscoelastic agent in phacoemulsification

PURPOSE

To evaluate the use of a mixture of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose 2.25% (HPMC) and lidocaine 1% (final concentrations) as a single viscoelastic/anesthetic agent to achieve proper anesthesia and viscoelastic properties during phacoemulsification.

SETTINGS

Department of Ophthalmology, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

METHODS

This prospective randomized study comprised 70 eyes having routine phacoemulsification. Patients had the HPMC-lidocaine mixture (n = 35) or pure HPMC 2.25% (n = 35) injected before capsulorhexis and again before intraocular lens implantation. The results were evaluated by a pain/discomfort score postoperatively.

RESULTS

The difference in medians of the overall intraoperative pain/discomfort scores between the 2 groups was not statistically significant. However, mild pain/discomfort was reported by 60.0% in the pure HPMC group and by 31.4% in the HPMC-lidocaine mixture group. Moderate pain/discomfort was reported by 28.6% and 5.7%, respectively. The difference between the 2 groups was statistically significant (P =.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of a mixture of HPMC 2.25% and lidocaine 1% rather than a regular viscoelastic agent resulted in clinically and statistically significantly reduced pain/discomfort during phacoemulsification.

Topical anesthesia with or without propofol sedation versus retrobulbar/peribulbar anesthesia for cataract extraction: prospective randomized trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility of intravenous sedation in addition to topical anesthesia during cataract extraction.

SETTING

Helsinki University Eye Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

METHODS

Three hundred seventeen eyes of 291 consecutive patients having cataract surgery were prospectively randomized to receive topical (oxybuprocaine 0.4%, n = 96), combined (topical anesthesia and propofol sedation, n = 107), or retrobulbar/peribulbar (prilocaine 1.5%, n = 114) anesthesia. The intraoperative conditions were judged by the surgeon. A numerical scale (0 to 10) was used to assess the degree of pain during surgery. Outcome measures were the number of complications and adverse events registered perioperatively and 1 week postoperatively as well as Snellen visual acuity.

RESULTS

The success of posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implantation through a self-sealing clear corneal incision was 97.9%, 96.3%, and 98.2% in the topical, combined, and retrobulbar/peribulbar groups, respectively. There was no difference among the groups in pain during surgery, frequency of complications, or outcome measures. One week postoperatively, visual acuity was 20/40 or better in 81.7%, 78.5%, and 77.5% of eyes in the topical, combined, and retrobulbar/peribulbar groups, respectively. The surgeon reported significantly fewer difficulties in the retrobulbar/peribulbar group (9.8%) than in the topical (26.0%) (P =.004) or combined (21.0%) (P =.036) groups. Additional sedative/analgesic medication given intraoperatively was required significantly more often in the topical (15.6%) than in the retrobulbar/peribulbar group (2.6%) (P =.002). Patients with bilateral surgery preferred combined anesthesia over retrobulbar/peribulbar anesthesia; however, there was no significant difference in patient acceptance among groups in patients having unilateral surgery.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous propofol sedation added to topical anesthesia did not improve the operative conditions or surgical outcome. Retrobulbar/peribulbar anesthesia ensured the best surgical conditions. Patients in all anesthesia groups reported high satisfaction. However, patients having bilateral surgery seemed to prefer combined anesthesia over retrobulbar/peribulbar anesthesia.

Circumcorneal perilimbal anesthesia in extracapsular cataract extraction with intraocular lens implantation

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of subconjunctival anesthesia in conventional extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.

SETTING

Eye Hospital, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

METHODS

This prospective study evaluated the complications related to the use of subconjunctival anesthesia in conventional ECCE with IOL implantation. Patient-reported pain during surgery in the first 100 consecutive cases was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Complications from the subconjunctival anesthesia technique were few. Patients did not report intraoperative pain severe enough to cause the procedure to be abandoned or the anesthesia reinforced; surgery was successfully performed in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Circumcorneal perilimbal anesthesia was effective for ECCE with IOL implantation. It is important that the surgeon is experienced in the technique and that patients are carefully selected.

Pain perception with pH buffered peribulbar anaesthesia: a pilot study

AIMS

To determine the relation between pH of anaesthetic solutions and patient perception of pain with peribulbar injection of local anaesthesia.

METHODS

This prospective randomised controlled double blind pilot study involved 60 consecutive patients who received a peribulbar block with either a standard acidic local anaesthetic of 5 ml 2% lignocaine and 5 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine (solution A), or an alkalinised solution composed of the same anaesthetic agents but with a pH of 7.44 (solution B). Before surgery patients were asked to grade the pain of both the preoperative dilating drops and the peribulbar injection using a visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

The mean pain scores were similar in the two treatment groups-slightly higher (4.97) in group B who received the buffered solution, compared with group A (4.84) who received the plain solution. The small difference (-0.13, 95% confidence limits -1.6 and +1.3) was not significant. There was, however, a highly significant association between pain threshold ("drop pain") and injection pain levels (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study showed no difference in the reduction in the pain experienced by patients undergoing peribulbar anaesthesia with pH buffered local anaesthetic. The study suggests the importance of "pain threshold" as a confounder and also showed the considerable pain felt by some patients on instillation of the preoperative dilating drops.

Does preservative-free lignocaine 1% for hydrodissection reduce pain during phacoemulsification?

PURPOSE

To compare preservative-free 1% lignocaine with balanced salt solution (BSS) in alleviating pain during hydrodissection in phacoemulsification cataract surgery.

SETTING

West Norwich Hospital, Norfolk, United Kingdom.

METHODS

This prospective double-masked trial comprised 68 patients having day-case phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups, receiving either BSS or lignocaine 1% solution for hydrodissection during routine uneventful phacoemulsification using topical anesthesia. The level of intraoperative pain was scored on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (severe pain), and the scores between the 2 groups were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 68 patients, 33 (49%) received BSS and 35 (51%), lignocaine 1% solution. A pain score greater than 2 was considered clinically significant; 28 patients (85%) in the BSS group and 25 (71%) in the lignocaine 1% group scored 2 or less. The chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests found no significant difference between the BSS and lignocaine 1% groups (P = .30 and P = .432, respectively).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in the pain scores in patients who received BSS or lignocaine 1% solution. Thus, we conclude that hydrodissecting with lignocaine 1% solution does not provide added pain relief during phacoemulsification.

A randomized controlled trial of intracameral lidocaine during phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that adjunctive intracameral 1% lidocaine reduces intraoperative pain during phacoemulsification using topical anesthesia.

DESIGN

Prospective, double-masked, randomized, controlled trial.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 200 patients undergoing routine phacoemulsification under topical 1% tetracaine were studied.

INTERVENTION

Randomization to 0.5 ml intracameral, unpreserved, epinephrine-free 1% lidocaine or placebo was conducted.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Intraoperative pain was quantified by the patients using a 0-10 visual analog pain scale.

RESULTS

Intraoperative pain scores (+/- standard deviation) for the lidocaine and control groups were 1.29 +/-1.24 and 1.44 +/- 1.33, respectively (P > 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

In a rigorously double-masked, prospective, randomized, controlled trial there was no significant reduction in intraoperative pain when intracameral 1% lidocaine was used during phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia.

Visual experience during phacoemulsification cataract surgery under topical anaesthesia

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Visual awareness during phacoemulsification cataract surgery is an important determinant of patient satisfaction with any anaesthetic technique. Topical anaesthesia could be associated with significant visual awareness because it does not affect optic nerve function.

METHODS

The visual experience during phacoemulsification cataract surgery under topical anaesthesia (without sedation) was assessed for 106 consecutive unselected patients. Patients were interviewed immediately after surgery using a standardised questionnaire that explored specific aspects of their visual experience.

RESULTS

Four patients were excluded because they had poor recollection of their visual experience. The visual awareness of the remaining 102 patients comprised operating microscope light (99), colours (73), flashes of light (7), vague movements (19), surgical instruments or other objects (12), change in light brightness during surgery (49), change in colours during surgery (30), and transient visual alteration during corneal irrigation (25). No patient found their visual experience during surgery unpleasant, though the operating microscope light was uncomfortably bright for two patients. Six patients lost light perception for a short interval during surgery. There was no association between the various visual phenomena reported and patients' age, sex, preoperative visual acuity, cataract morphology, coexisting ocular pathology, or previous experience of cataract surgery under local anaesthesia (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients experience a wide variety of visual sensations during phacoemulsification cataract surgery under topical anaesthesia. Topical anaesthesia does not, however, appear to result in greater visual awareness than regional anaesthesia. Preoperative patient counselling should include information about the visual experience during surgery.

Topical anesthesia using lidocaine gel for cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and efficacy of topical anesthesia using lidocaine gel in cataract surgery.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Meir Hospital, Sapir Medical Center, Kfar-Saba, Israel.

METHODS

One hundred cataract procedures (48 manual extracapsular cataract extraction [ECCE] and 52 phacoemulsification) were performed using lidocaine 2% gel as the sole anesthetic agent. The gel was applied 3 to 5 times prior to surgery. Intraoperative and postoperative data were recorded, and patients were asked to grade the pain on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain).

RESULTS

Sixty-two percent of patients having manual ECCE and 74% having phacoemulsification reported no pain during surgery (score 0). The mean pain score in the manual ECCE group was 0.99 +/- 1.64 (SD); 3 patients required an additional intracameral lidocaine injection. The mean score in the phacoemulsification group was 0.72 +/- 1.47; no patient required additional anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical application using lidocaine 2% gel is safe and highly effective, especially in clear corneal phacoemulsification. The gel also provides prolonged lubrication, further facilitating surgery.

Converting to topical anesthesia in cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the complications and difficulties encountered by surgeons converting from paraocular to topical anesthesia in cataract surgery and to evaluate patient pain and satisfaction with each procedure.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

METHODS

Three hundred eyes of 245 consecutive patients were prospectively assigned by permuted block-restricted randomization to receive topical (bupivacaine 0.75%) (Group 1; n = 136) or paraocular (Group 2; n = 163) anesthesia. The intraoperative conditions were judged by the surgeon. A numerical scale (0 to 10) was used to assess the degree of pain during administration of anesthesia, during surgery, and 1 and 24 hours postoperatively. Outcome measures were the number of complications and adverse events registered perioperatively and 4 months postoperatively as well as Snellen visual acuity and surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) measured 1 week and 4 months after surgery.

RESULTS

The success of posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implantation through a self-sealing clear corneal incision was very high (99.3% and 96.9% in Groups 1 and 2, respectively). One case (0.7%) in the topical group required vitrectomy and implantation of an anterior chamber IOL. Anesthesia-related difficulties were reported in about 40% of patients in Group 1 and 4% in Group 2 (P < .001). Supplemental paraocular anesthesia was required in 4 cases (2.9%) in the topical group. Sedative/analgesic medication given perioperatively was required significantly more often in Group 1 (13.2%) than in Group 2 (2.4%) (P < .01). Significantly more pain during surgery (P < .001) and 1 hour after surgery (P < .001) was reported in the topical group. In Group 1 69.9% and in Group 2 93.3% reported no pain during surgery (P < .001). Chemosis (1.8%), subconjunctival hemorrhage (1.2%), and periorbital hematoma (1.2%) were seen only in the paraocular group. Perioperatively, no severe complications occurred in Group 1 and the number of adverse events was less than in Group 2. Postoperatively, 2 cases of endophthalmitis developed in the topical group and none in the paraocular group. There was no between-group difference in outcome measures; a visual acuity of 20/40 or better was found in 87.8% of eyes in Group 1 and 84.9% in Group 2 4 months postoperatively, and the percentages of eyes with SIAs within 1.0 diopter of preoperative values were similar (78.6% and 73.3%, respectively). Patient preference for topical anesthesia appeared to be higher than for paraocular anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

Paraocular anesthesia gave better analgesia than topical, but topical anesthesia provided acceptable analgesia during surgery and showed that intraocular procedures can be performed without akinesia. The surgeon converting to topical anesthesia may expect slight difficulty in 40% of cases and more severe difficulty in 7%. Surgically related complications were similar with both methods.

Pain in scleral pocket incision cataract surgery using topical and peribulbar anesthesia

PURPOSE

To evaluate the pain produced during different phases of phacoemulsification cataract surgery using a scleral pocket incision under topical versus peribulbar anesthesia.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.

METHODS

This prospective study comprised 100 cataract patients who were randomly selected to have phacoemulsification with a scleral pocket incision using either topical or peribulbar anesthesia. Topical anesthesia comprised oxybuprocaine 0.4% drops. Peribulbar anesthesia was given with an inferolateral transconjuctival injection of an even mixture of lidocaine 2% and bupivacaine 0.5% with hyaluronidase. Inadvertent eye movement during surgery was recorded. Pain occurring during intravenous line cannulation, introduction of the anesthetic agent, and phacoemulsification was measured using a visual analog scale (from 0 to 10) and a descriptive verbal 5-step scale. Patients were asked about pain immediately after each phase.

RESULTS

The pain during cannulation was similar in both groups (P = .498). The peribulbar injection was statistically significantly more painful than induction of topical anesthesia (2.11 and 0.10, respectively; P < .001). Surgery was statistically significantly more painful in the topical group than in the peribulbar group (2.76 and 0.85, respectively; P < .001). The mean pain score during all 3 phases was similar (1.43 topical group and 1.51 peribulbar group; P = .500). On the verbal scale, surgery was more painful under topical than under peribulbar anesthesia (P < .001). There were no statistical differences in pain during the peribulbar injection and during cannulation (P = .461 and P = .462, respectively). Inadvertent eye movement occurred more often in the topical anesthesia group.

CONCLUSION

Considering the entire procedure, total pain using topical anesthesia was acceptable and equal to that using peribulbar anesthesia for phacoemulsification with a scleral pocket incision. Pain during phacoemulsification was greater under topical anesthesia but not significantly different from the pain during the peribulbar injection.

Simplified anesthesia technique for scleral tunnel phacoemulsification

A simplified anesthesia technique for sutureless scleral tunnel, small incision, one-port phacoemulsification is described. Step 1: Mild intravenous sedation is achieved with 1 mg of midazolam and 10 mg of propofol. Step 2: A tetracaine- or preservative-free-lidocaine-soaked Weck cell sponge is applied to the superior bulbar conjunctiva and the superior episcleral tissue for localized anesthesia. Step 3: Preservative-free lidocaine 1%, 0.75 cc, is injected into the anterior chamber for intraocular anesthesia. This technique can be used in the presence of all types of cataracts, requires about 10 seconds to complete, and can be used with all phacoemulsification techniques. Results of the technique in a study population are reported.

Topical anesthesia: Proxymetacaine versus Amethocaine for clear corneal phacoemulsification

PURPOSE

To evaluate the use of proparacaine (Proxymetacaine) versus tetracaine (Amethocaine) as the topical anesthetic agent for phacoemulsification cataract surgery using a 3.5 mm clear corneal sutureless incision.

SETTING

Harold Wood Hospital, Romford, Essex, United Kingdom.

METHODS

This prospective study comprised 40 randomly selected patients. Twenty were given Proxymetacaine and 20, Amethocaine. The level of discomfort experienced during delivery of the topical anesthetic agent and during and immediately after surgery was measured using a pain score. During surgery, topical anesthesia was supplemented by intracameral lignocaine 1%.

RESULTS

Patients given Proxymetacaine experienced no stinging sensation during its administration; those given Amethocaine reported varying degrees of discomfort. The difference between groups was statistically significant (P < .01). There was no difference between groups in the amount of discomfort experienced intraoperatively or postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Proxymetacaine is the topical analgesic of choice for phacoemulsification because it produced no discomfort on administration yet had the same analgesic properties as Amethocaine.

Topical versus peribulbar anesthesia, without sedation, for clear corneal phacoemulsification

PURPOSE

To investigate patient and surgeon acceptance of topical anesthesia as an alternative to peribulbar anesthesia for clear corneal phacoemulsification.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Whipps Cross Hospital, London, England.

METHODS

All cataract surgery was performed using a temporal clear corneal approach, bimanual phacoemulsification, and in-the-bag intraocular lens implantation. The results of 51 patients having surgery under topical anesthesia (amethocaine) were compared with those of 30 patients having peribulbar anesthesia (50:50 mixture of lignocaine 2% and bupivacaine 0.5% with hyaluronidase). No sedation was used in either group. Pain perception on administration of the anesthetic, perioperatively (period immediately surrounding and during surgery), and postoperatively was assessed using a visual analog scale from 0 to 10 (0 = no pain: 10 = worst pain imaginable). A questionnaire was used to assess the degree of patient and surgeon satisfaction.

RESULTS

Administration of topical amethocaine was significantly less painful than peribulbar bupivacaine (P = .03). Perioperative pain showed a trend toward being worse in the topical anesthesia group but did not reach statistical significance. There was no difference in the postoperative pain scores of the two groups. The surgical experience was rated very satisfactory by 67% in the topical group and 73% in the peribulbar group. The surgeons reported no difficulties or complications.

CONCLUSION

Topical anesthesia was safe and effective for clear corneal phacoemulsification and was well tolerated by patients. The slightly greater awareness of ocular discomfort in the topical group perioperatively did not alter patient satisfaction with the surgical experience when compared with the peribulbar group.

Preservative-free lidocaine 1% anterior chamber irrigation as an adjunct to topical anesthesia

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect on the central corneal endothelium of anterior chamber irrigation with preservative-free lidocaine 1% as an adjunct to topical anesthesia during phacoemulsification.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Capuchos, Lisbon, Portugal.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized controlled study comprised 59 eyes. Thirty-one eyes had phacoemulsification (in-the-bag cracking technique) under topical anesthesia with anterior chamber irrigation by preservative-free lidocaine 1%. Twenty-eight eyes having the same procedure but with local-regional anesthesia served as the control group. All eyes had preoperative and postoperative specular microscopy and computer-assisted morphometry. A Student's t-test was used for between-group comparison of the following parameters: patient age, central corneal endothelial cell loss, mean endothelial cell size variation, and phacoemulsification ultrasound time Follow-up was 4 weeks.

RESULTS

The between-group differences in mean patient age and ultrasound time were not significant. The differences between groups in the endothelial cell parameters were also not significant. Mean postoperative endothelial cell loss was 3.59% +/- 2.79 (SD) in the topical anesthesia group and 4.37 +/- 2.00% in the control group. Mean variation in cell size was 3.71 +/- 1.57% and 3.79 +/- 1.07%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Intracameral infusion of preservative-free lidocaine 1% had no effect on the corneal endothelial cell loss rate or mean cell size variation in this short-term assessment.

Topical anaesthesia for cataract surgery

First, do no harm. We believe that the analgesia provided by topical anaesthetic is adequate for small-incision cataract surgery and does not compromise the safety of the surgery. In addition, the lack of amaurosis is ideal for day-case surgery, which itself is increasingly popular. If preventable, why not prevented? The greatest attraction of topical anaesthesia is its complete absence of the complications described for injectional local anaesthetic techniques. We therefore recommend that our colleagues consider topical anaesthetic for patients undergoing small-incision cataract surgery under local anaesthesia. Our policy for the past 3 years has been to use only topical or general anaesthetics for cataract surgery.

Indicators of patient suitability for topical anesthesia

PURPOSE

To determine whether a patient's suitability for phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia can be predicted preoperatively by their performance during tonometry and A-scan.

SETTING

Whipps Cross Hospital Ophthalmology Department, London, England.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients who were considered suitable for phacoemulsification were selected for the study. Using a scoring system we devised, observers assessed the patients for the ease with which intraocular pressure and axial length were measured. These scores were compared with an assessment of how well they tolerated phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia. Correlation between the scores was measured with Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, Kendall's rank correlation coefficient, and the Goodman-Kruskal gamma statistic.

RESULTS

Phacoemulsification and posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation were completed in all patients. Statistical analysis showed that tonometry and A-scan scores correlated highly with surgery scores. Age was also a significant variable in predicting the surgery score. A significant discrepancy between tonometry and A-scan and surgery scores was found in only one patient, and it was noted that he was one of the youngest patients in the study.

CONCLUSION

How well a patient performs during tonometry and A-scan was a good predictor of how well he or she tolerated having phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia. The decision about type of anesthesia should, however, also involve other factors, including communication, cooperation, and the age of the patient.

Anterior chamber irrigation with unpreserved lidocaine 1% for anesthesia during cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness of using anterior chamber irrigation of unpreserved lidocaine 1% as anesthesia during cataract surgery.

SETTING

Private group ophthalmology practice.

METHODS

This study prospectively evaluated 1000 of 1012 consecutive eyes having temporal corneal incision cataract surgery to determine whether anterior chamber lidocaine provides adequate anesthesia for cataract surgery. Twelve eyes were excluded because the patients had preoperative sedation. Surgery on the remaining 1000 eyes was performed by one surgeon without patients receiving preoperative or intraoperative sedation or other medications other than the local anesthetic and dilating agents. Each received one drop of topical proparacaine before entering the operating room. After an initial corneal stab incision was made, 0.25 to 0.50 cc of unpreserved lidocaine 1% was irrigated into the anterior chamber.

RESULTS

One patient was so uncomfortable from the microscope that he required supplemental retrobulbar anesthesia. A second patient was extremely uncomfortable during the case but did not require supplemental anesthesia. Two patients received additional dosages of anesthetic because of discomfort late in the operation. The remaining 996 patients were comfortable and pain-free during the operation with a single dose of the anesthetic.

CONCLUSION

Anterior chamber irrigation with unpreserved lidocaine 1% was an effective method for anesthetizing an eye for temporal corneal incision cataract surgery.

Topical anaesthesia with oxybuprocaine versus sub-Tenon's infiltration with 2% lignocaine for small incision cataract surgery

AIMS

To determine whether topical anaesthesia in small incision self-sealing phacoemulsification cataract surgery provides comparable anaesthesia to sub-Tenon's infiltration.

METHODS

Thirty five patients undergoing small incision self-sealing phacoemulsification cataract surgery were allocated randomly to receive topical anaesthesia with 0.4% oxybuprocaine or sub-Tenon's infiltration with 2% lignocaine. Pain experienced during the operation was assessed by asking the patient to score on a visual analogue graphic pain score chart.

RESULTS

The median pain score for the topical group (3) was significantly higher than that of the sub-Tenon's group (0) (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Sub-Tenon's infiltration is superior to topical anaesthesia in ensuring patient comfort during small incision scleral tunnel self-sealing phacoemulsification cataract surgery.

Patient comfort during cataract surgery with modified topical and peribulbar anesthesia

PURPOSE

To evaluate patient comfort during cataract surgery performed using modified topical and peribulbar anesthesia.

SETTING

Sunderland Eye Infirmary Cataract Treatment Centre, Sunderland, United Kingdom.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 50 consecutive patients scheduled for cataract surgery with local anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive topical bupivacaine hydrochloride plus 0.1 mL subconjunctival lignocaine or standard peribulbar anesthesia. All surgery was performed by one surgeon using a scleral pocket bimanual phacoemulsification technique. Patients were asked to grade the pain experienced during administration of the anesthetic and during cataract surgery using a visual analog scale.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference in patient comfort was demonstrated between the two groups during cataract surgery (P < .4, Wilcoxon rank-sum test), and all patients were satisfied with the anesthesia. However, administration of topical bupivacaine was significantly less painful than peribulbar injections (P < .001, Wilcoxon rank-sum test). In eight patients in the topical anesthesia group, the cataract in the fellow eye was removed using peribulbar anesthesia; seven of these patients stated a preference for the modified topical method, while one patient thought there was no difference between the two methods. There was no difference between the groups in surgical complications, but 24% of the peribulbar group had a minor subconjunctival hemorrhage at the needle entry site.

CONCLUSION

The modified topical technique provided satisfactory patient comfort during cataract surgery; it was comparable to the comfort achieved using peribulbar injections. The speed and ease of administering topical anesthesia coupled with the rapid visual recovery after surgery makes this method a suitable and safe choice for day-case phacoemulsification cataract surgery.