A prospective study on postoperative discomfort after 20-gauge pars plana vitrectomy

Developing a Measure to Quantify Ocular Pain Postoperatively: The Adaptation of the Ocular Pain Assessment Survey

Purpose

Since quantification and communication of ocular pain is important for a healthier patient follow-up and postoperative guidance, reliable measures like the Ophthalmic Pain Assessment Survey (OPAS) are needed to assess the outcome and management of different operations. To address that need, we carried out the adaptation of OPAS into Turkish to reach different age groups and backgrounds, widening the use of OPAS on patients who underwent an ophthalmic operation.

Methods

We used back-translation method and achieved cultural adaptation through content validity scoring by 5 independent ophthalmologists. The survey is then administered three times: preoperatively, postoperatively within 24 hours, and finally a week later in the follow-up visit. Validity is measured in comparison to Visual Analog Scale using Spearman's correlation coefficient and reliability is measured using Cronbach's alpha. Factor analysis is performed by principal component analysis and rotation is performed using Varimax method when necessary.

Results

We reached a total of 132 patients with a mean age of 64.2 years. Most of them underwent phacoemulsification (n = 83), followed by PRK (n = 37). Overall, the T-OPAS demonstrated good reliability (mean C. alpha: 0.830) and its correlation with the VAS was especially high (S. coeff. >0.5) in the first three sections in all three surveys. Factor analysis yielded 5 subscales, allowing us to shape the final form of T-OPAS.

Conclusion

Through this adaptation of OPAS into a foreign language, we present a reliable and valid tool for postoperative pain quantification, allowing objective measurement of pain in different populations such as the elderly.

Effectiveness of Subconjunctival 0.5% Bupivacaine for Postoperative Analgesia after Intravitreal Silicon Oil Removal Surgery

Background

Intravitreal silicon oil removal surgery can cause mild-to-moderate postoperative pain and discomfort in most patients. Postoperative pain can be managed by using many methods, including a local anesthetic drug. One of the common local anesthetic drugs is 0.5% bupivacaine. The application techniques also vary, such as subconjunctival application. It was a good alternative for postoperative analgesia in the ophthalmic surgery because of its minimal risks and complications. The purpose of this research was to measure the effectiveness of subconjunctival 0.5% bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in silicon oil removal surgery.

Method

This was a double-blind randomized clinical study in patients undergoing elective intravitreal silicon oil removal surgery at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital. Thirty consecutive patients, enrolled from October 2016 to February 2017, were randomized to receive subconjunctival 0.5% bupivacaine or subconjunctival placebo (0.9% NaCl) at the end of the surgery. The primary outcome was the pain score 24 hours after surgery, using a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Intravenous injection of tramadol 50 mg was given if the VAS >4. Secondary outcomes were the time to first analgesic requirement and the incidence of nausea/vomiting. Statistical analysis was conducted to measure the difference between 24 h pain score in the bupivacaine group (B) and that in the placebo group (NS).

Result

The overall 24 hours' postoperative pain score was significantly different between the bupivacaine group and the placebo group (p=0.001). In the 24 hours after surgery, there were only five patients needing additional analgesia in the placebo group. The time to first analgesic requirement was significantly different between the two groups (p=0.042). Nausea/vomiting only happened in the placebo group with proportions 6% and 3%, respectively.

Conclusion

Subconjunctival 0.5% bupivacaine was effective for postoperative analgesia in intravitreal silicon oil removal surgery.

Trojan horse anaesthesia: A novel method of anaesthesia for pars plana vitrectomy

CONTEXT:

Topical anesthesia has been used for pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with limited patient comfort. Thus, augmenting topical anesthesia with intracameral anesthesia (Trojan horse anesthesia) will provide pain-free experience during PPV.

AIMS:

This study was undertaken to evaluate the patient comfort and surgical safety using 2% lignocaine jelly augmented with intracameral 1.0% lignocaine solution for anesthetizing the eyes undergoing PPV.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN:

This was a prospective interventional case series at tertiary care hospital.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:

Patients planned for PPV for indications other than retinal detachment were included in the study. The pain perception of the participants undergoing PPV under Trojan horse anesthesia was evaluated using visual analog scale (VAS).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED:

Data analysis was done using descriptive statistics and nonparametric analysis with level of significance at P < 0.05.

RESULTS:

There were 114 eyes of 114 patients in the study out of which 68.4% (n = 78) were males. The mean age was 42.31 years (range 14–80 years, standard deviation [SD] 18.7). The mean surgical time was 34.0 min (range 13–80 min, SD 14.2). The pain perception on VAS scale averaged 3.0 (range 0–8, SD 1.59, median 3.0). Pain scores were not affected by the age (Pearson correlation = 0.098, P = 0.3), gender (P = 0.44), or the educational status of the participant (P = 0.28). The pain scores were not affected by the indications of surgery (P = 0.58) or the use of silicone oil (P = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS:

Trojan horse anesthesia provides adequate analgesia for comfortable and safe 23-gauge PPV with high patient acceptability.

Vision Preference Value Scale and Patient Preferences in Choosing Therapy for Symptomatic Vitreomacular Interface Abnormality

Importance

While symptomatic vitreomacular interface abnormalities (VIAs) are common, assessment of vision preference values and treatment preferences of these may guide treatment recommendations by physicians and influence third-party payers.

Objective

To determine preference values that individuals with VIA assign to their visual state and preferences of potential treatments.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional one-time questionnaire study conducted between December 2015 and January 2017, 213 patients from tertiary care referral centers in Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States were studied. Patients with symptomatic VIA diagnosed within 1 year of data collection, visual acuity less than 20/20 OU, and symptoms ascribed to VIAs were included. Data were analyzed from January 2017 to November 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end points were overall mean preference value that individuals with VIA assigned to their visual state and patients' preferences for potential treatments. Preference values were graded on a scale from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating death and 1 indicating perfect health with perfect vision.

Results

Of the 213 included patients, 139 (65.3%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 65.6 (7.7) years. Diagnoses included epiretinal membrane (n = 100 [46.9%]), macular hole (n = 99 [46.5%]), and vitreomacular traction (n = 14 [6.6%]). The mean (SD) vision preference value was 0.76 (0.15), without differences identified among the 3 VIA types. More participants were enthusiastic about vitrectomy (150 [71.1%]) compared with intravitreal injection (120 [56.9%]) (difference, 14.2%; 95% CI, 5.16-23.3; P = .002). Adjusted analyses showed enthusiasm for vitrectomy was associated with fellow eye visual acuity (odds ratio, 10.99; 95% CI, 2.01-59.97; P = .006) and better-seeing eye visual acuity (odds ratio, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.001-0.66; P = .03). Overall enthusiasm for treatment was associated with fellow eye visual acuity (odds ratio, 7.22; 95% CI, 1.29-40.40; P = .02). Overall, most participants (171 [81.0%]) were enthusiastic about surgery, injection, or both.

Conclusions and Relevance

Study participants reported similar preference values among 3 types of VIAs. The data suggest that most patients with these conditions would be enthusiastic about undergoing vitrectomy or an injection to treat it, likely because of the condition's effect on visual functioning, although there may be a slight preference for vitrectomy at this time.