Study of safety and efficacy of sub-Tenon and subconjunctival anesthesia in manual small-incision cataract surgery for hard-grade cataracts.

Q3 Medicine
Oman Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2024-06-27 eCollection Date: 2024-05-01 DOI:10.4103/ojo.ojo_7_23
Rajesh Subhash Joshi, Pranshu Goel, Pallavi Doble
{"title":"Study of safety and efficacy of sub-Tenon and subconjunctival anesthesia in manual small-incision cataract surgery for hard-grade cataracts.","authors":"Rajesh Subhash Joshi, Pranshu Goel, Pallavi Doble","doi":"10.4103/ojo.ojo_7_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose was to study the safety and efficacy of sub-Tenon and subconjunctival anesthesia in manual small-incision cataract surgery (MSICS) in patients with hard-grade cataracts.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>The design of the study was a prospective, observational, and randomized control study.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 196 eyes, including 98 eyes in the subconjunctival anesthesia group (group A) and 98 eyes in the sub-Tenon anesthesia group (Group B), undergoing MSICS were enrolled in the study. A single surgeon performed all the surgeries. Intraoperative and postoperative pain scores, patient comfort, surgeon's satisfaction, and intraoperative complications were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of patients in Group A was 66.64 ± 9.95 years and that of patients in Group B was 64.52 ± 9.46. No statistically significant difference was noted in the intraoperative (<i>P</i> = 0.54) and postoperative pain (<i>P</i> = 0.66) scores between the two groups. There was no pain (0 score) in 30% of patients in Group A and 35% of patients in Group B intraoperatively. The average surgical time (<i>P</i> = 0.66) and surgeon's comfort (<i>P</i> = 0.34) were not statistically significant. The mean corneal haze was 0.054 ± 0.12 in group A and 0.065 ± 0.22 in group B (<i>P</i> = 0.45). Two patients in group A required supplemental anesthesia. There were no surgical complications that could compromise visual outcomes. No patients in either group showed alterations in vital parameters or required intravenous sedation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both techniques of anesthesia are safe and effective for performing MSICS in hard-grade cataracts. However, it is prudent to choose a technique according to the surgeon's requirements.</p>","PeriodicalId":19461,"journal":{"name":"Oman Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":"17 2","pages":"181-186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11309539/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oman Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ojo.ojo_7_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose was to study the safety and efficacy of sub-Tenon and subconjunctival anesthesia in manual small-incision cataract surgery (MSICS) in patients with hard-grade cataracts.

Study design: The design of the study was a prospective, observational, and randomized control study.

Materials and methods: A total of 196 eyes, including 98 eyes in the subconjunctival anesthesia group (group A) and 98 eyes in the sub-Tenon anesthesia group (Group B), undergoing MSICS were enrolled in the study. A single surgeon performed all the surgeries. Intraoperative and postoperative pain scores, patient comfort, surgeon's satisfaction, and intraoperative complications were examined.

Results: The mean age of patients in Group A was 66.64 ± 9.95 years and that of patients in Group B was 64.52 ± 9.46. No statistically significant difference was noted in the intraoperative (P = 0.54) and postoperative pain (P = 0.66) scores between the two groups. There was no pain (0 score) in 30% of patients in Group A and 35% of patients in Group B intraoperatively. The average surgical time (P = 0.66) and surgeon's comfort (P = 0.34) were not statistically significant. The mean corneal haze was 0.054 ± 0.12 in group A and 0.065 ± 0.22 in group B (P = 0.45). Two patients in group A required supplemental anesthesia. There were no surgical complications that could compromise visual outcomes. No patients in either group showed alterations in vital parameters or required intravenous sedation.

Conclusion: Both techniques of anesthesia are safe and effective for performing MSICS in hard-grade cataracts. However, it is prudent to choose a technique according to the surgeon's requirements.

腱膜下和结膜下麻醉在人工小切口白内障手术治疗硬性白内障中的安全性和有效性研究。
目的:研究硬性白内障患者人工小切口白内障手术(MSICS)中腱膜下和结膜下麻醉的安全性和有效性:研究设计:研究设计为前瞻性、观察性和随机对照研究:共有 196 只接受 MSICS 手术的眼睛被纳入研究,包括 98 只结膜下麻醉组(A 组)和 98 只腱膜下麻醉组(B 组)。所有手术均由一名外科医生完成。对术中和术后疼痛评分、患者舒适度、外科医生满意度和术中并发症进行了检查:A组患者的平均年龄为(66.64±9.95)岁,B组患者的平均年龄为(64.52±9.46)岁。两组患者的术中(P = 0.54)和术后疼痛(P = 0.66)评分差异无统计学意义。30% 的 A 组患者和 35% 的 B 组患者术中无疼痛感(0 分)。平均手术时间(P = 0.66)和手术舒适度(P = 0.34)无统计学意义。A 组的平均角膜混浊度为 0.054 ± 0.12,B 组为 0.065 ± 0.22(P = 0.45)。A 组有两名患者需要辅助麻醉。没有可能影响视觉效果的手术并发症。两组患者均未出现生命体征改变或需要静脉镇静:结论:两种麻醉技术在硬性白内障的 MSICS 手术中都是安全有效的。结论:两种麻醉技术对硬性白内障的 MSICS 都安全有效,但应根据外科医生的要求谨慎选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Oman Journal of Ophthalmology
Oman Journal of Ophthalmology Medicine-Ophthalmology
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
68
审稿时长
50 weeks
期刊介绍: To provide a platform for scientific expression of the Oman Ophthalmic Society and the international Ophthalmic community and to provide opportunities for free exchange of ideas and information. To serve as a valuable resource for ophthalmologists, eye-care providers including optometrists, orthoptists, other health care professionals and research workers in all aspects of the field of visual science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信