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 random...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of cataract and refractive surgery 2001-09, Vol.27 (9), p.1372-1379
Hauptverfasser: Kallio, Helena, Uusitalo, Risto J, Maunuksela, Eeva-Liisa
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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.
ISSN:0886-3350
1873-4502
DOI:10.1016/S0886-3350(01)00800-8