Comparison of the effectiveness of 0.5% and 0.25% proparacaine hydrochloride eye drops as topical anesthetics in routine ocular investigations and procedures.

Abstract

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of 0.5% and 0.25% proparacaine eye drops in providing topical anesthesia for routine ocular procedures.

Methodology: 137 patients (274 eyes) were included in this study. They were categorized into two groups. Group A patients received 0.5% and Group B received 0.25% proparacaine drops. A single surgeon performed all the procedures. Intraprocedural and postprocedural pain scores, surgeon comfort, supplemental anesthesia, and vital parameters, were noted.

Results: The mean age of the participants was 69.42 years (±12.05). An equal number of procedures were performed (n = 30) for applanation tonometry, lacrimal sac syringing, and A-scan biometry. The other procedures performed were removal of the conjunctiva (n = 5) and corneal foreign bodies (n = 16 per group), corneal scraping (n = 8 per group), and corneal suture removal (n = 18 per group).The mean visual analog pain score during the procedure was 6.9663 in Group A and 8.0803 in Group B (P = 0.66). The mean postprocedural pain score was not significant (P = 0.21). None of the patients required any additional anesthesia during or after the procedure. The average surgeon's experience was 0.152±0.507 in Group A and 0.111±0.402 in Group B (P = 0.07).In Group A, 133 of 137 patients (97.08%), and in Group B, 132 out of 137 patients (96.35%) preferred to use the same anesthetic for future procedures. None of the patients experienced a vasovagal attack or any change in vital parameters.

Discussion: The present study aimed to establish equivalence between two concentrations of proparacaine hydrochloride in which false positive and false negative errors were expected. This is the inherent challenge in the equivalence and inferiority trials. To mitigate these risks, the present study was carefully designed with specific statistical methods, sample size calculation, and rigorous methodology. Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognize that the risk of false positive errors remains, and the results should be interpreted with this in mind.

Conclusion: These findings indicated that 0.25% proparacaine is a viable alternative to the standard 0.5% concentration in routine ophthalmic procedures, with the potential for improved patient comfort.