Topical Anaesthesia Versus Peribulbar Anaesthesia in Small Incision Cataract Surgery – A Comparative Study from Hyderabad Karnataka Region

Sumeet Deshpande, Rashmi R. Anwekar, R. Reddy
{"title":"Topical Anaesthesia Versus Peribulbar Anaesthesia in Small Incision Cataract Surgery – A Comparative Study from Hyderabad Karnataka Region","authors":"Sumeet Deshpande, Rashmi R. Anwekar, R. Reddy","doi":"10.18410/jebmh/2021/604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND Anaesthesia is an integral part of any successful surgery. Advances in cataract surgery have led to changes in delivery of anaesthesia as well. Patient and surgeons’ comfort during anaesthesia and surgery is the single most important factor. In developing countries, small incision cataract is preferred sometimes over phacoemulsification in high volume centers. This study was done to compare patient and surgeon satisfaction following topical anaesthesia (TA) versus peribulbar anaesthesia (PA) for small incision cataract surgery (SICS) with intraocular lens implantation (IOL). METHODS This comparative observational study was done at M.R. Medical College, Kalaburagi over a period of 15 months from November 2018 to April 2020. 400 patients undergoing manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) after obtaining consent were included in the study, out of which 200 patients were administered TA while 200 were given PA randomly. Patients were prospectively evaluated for pain during administration, during surgery and 4-hours postoperatively through a questionnaire. RESULTS In our study TA group complained no pain whereas 85 % had mild pain and 13 % had moderate pain in PA group during administration of anaesthesia (P < 0.05). During surgery, none of the patients in both the groups experienced severe pain. 17 % patients in TA group had mild pain at 4 hours while only 4 % patients in PA group had pain (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in surgeon’s satisfaction between 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS Although the administration of PA is painful compared to TA, the patient satisfaction was more post-operatively in PA group. Topical anaesthesia has gained popularity due to minimal discomfort, speed of onset and lack of PA related complications. It is a safe and effective alternative to PA in MSICS with proper selection and education of patient. KEYWORDS Small Incision Cataract Surgery, Topical Anaesthesia, Peribulbar Anaesthesia","PeriodicalId":15779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18410/jebmh/2021/604","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Anaesthesia is an integral part of any successful surgery. Advances in cataract surgery have led to changes in delivery of anaesthesia as well. Patient and surgeons’ comfort during anaesthesia and surgery is the single most important factor. In developing countries, small incision cataract is preferred sometimes over phacoemulsification in high volume centers. This study was done to compare patient and surgeon satisfaction following topical anaesthesia (TA) versus peribulbar anaesthesia (PA) for small incision cataract surgery (SICS) with intraocular lens implantation (IOL). METHODS This comparative observational study was done at M.R. Medical College, Kalaburagi over a period of 15 months from November 2018 to April 2020. 400 patients undergoing manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) after obtaining consent were included in the study, out of which 200 patients were administered TA while 200 were given PA randomly. Patients were prospectively evaluated for pain during administration, during surgery and 4-hours postoperatively through a questionnaire. RESULTS In our study TA group complained no pain whereas 85 % had mild pain and 13 % had moderate pain in PA group during administration of anaesthesia (P < 0.05). During surgery, none of the patients in both the groups experienced severe pain. 17 % patients in TA group had mild pain at 4 hours while only 4 % patients in PA group had pain (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in surgeon’s satisfaction between 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS Although the administration of PA is painful compared to TA, the patient satisfaction was more post-operatively in PA group. Topical anaesthesia has gained popularity due to minimal discomfort, speed of onset and lack of PA related complications. It is a safe and effective alternative to PA in MSICS with proper selection and education of patient. KEYWORDS Small Incision Cataract Surgery, Topical Anaesthesia, Peribulbar Anaesthesia
小切口白内障手术的表面麻醉与球周麻醉——来自海德拉巴卡纳塔克邦地区的比较研究
背景麻醉是任何成功手术不可或缺的一部分。白内障手术的进步也导致了麻醉方式的改变。患者和外科医生在麻醉和手术期间的舒适是唯一最重要的因素。在发展中国家,小切口白内障有时比大容量中心的超声乳化术更受欢迎。本研究旨在比较小切口白内障手术(SICS)人工晶状体植入术(IOL)患者和外科医生在表面麻醉(TA)和球周麻醉(PA)后的满意度。方法本比较观察性研究于2018年11月至2020年4月在卡拉布拉吉M.R.医学院进行,为期15个月。本研究纳入400例经同意行手工小切口白内障手术(msic)的患者,其中200例患者给予TA, 200例患者随机给予PA。通过问卷调查对患者在给药期间、手术期间和术后4小时的疼痛进行前瞻性评估。结果在给药过程中,TA组无疼痛,PA组有轻度疼痛的占85%,中度疼痛的占13% (P < 0.05)。在手术过程中,两组患者均未经历剧烈疼痛。TA组患者在4 h时有轻微疼痛的比例为17%,而PA组仅为4% (P < 0.05)。两组患者对手术的满意度比较,差异无统计学意义。结论:PA组患者术后满意度高于TA组,但PA组患者术后满意度高于TA组。局部麻醉因其最小的不适感、起效速度和缺乏PA相关并发症而越来越受欢迎。通过正确的选择和患者的教育,它是一种安全有效的替代药物。关键词:小切口白内障手术,表面麻醉,球周麻醉
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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