Patient pain during stretching of small pupils in phacoemulsification performed using topical anesthesia

PURPOSE: To assess the pain experienced by patients with small pupils during pupil stretching in phacoemulsification performed using topical anesthesia. SETTING: Royal Victoria Eye & Ear Hospital and Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. METHODS: This was a prospective study that included 26 eyes with small pupils requiring mechanical pupil stretching during phacoemulsification cataract surgery performed under topical anesthesia without sedation. RESULTS: The mean pain score for the instillation of anesthetic drops (2.02) was higher than the mean pain score for the pupil stretch (1.63), but this difference was not significant (signed rank test = -32; P = .2738). There was no significant correlation between the duration of surgery and the overall pain score (r = 0.345; P = .08). There was no significant correlation between change in pupil size and either the pupil stretch score (r = -0.069; P = .74) or the overall pain score (r = -0.032; P = .8739). CONCLUSIONS: Pupil stretching during phacoemulsification in patients with small pupils was performed with minimal patient-reported pain using topical anesthesia. Stretching small pupils with a mechanical device during phacoemulsification performed under topical anesthesia was a safe procedure and did not result in significant patient discomfort.     

Topical versus sub-Tenon's anesthesia without sedation in cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare pain control using topical anesthesia with that using sub-Tenon's anesthesia for clear corneal phacoemulsification cataract surgery and foldable intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. SETTING: Departments of Ophthalmology, General Hospital Asklepeion Voulas and General Hospital of Athens, University of Athens, Athens, Greece. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients scheduled for bilateral cataract surgery 1 to 2 months apart were prospectively randomized to receive topical anesthesia (100 eyes) or sub-Tenon's anesthesia (100 eyes). The randomization was stratified so that one half of first-eye surgeries and one half of second-eye surgeries were assigned to each anesthesia group, with each patient receiving each type of anesthesia once. All patients had clear corneal phacoemulsification with foldable IOL implantation. Patients were asked to rate their pain level on a 10-point scale for 4 periods: during the administration of the anesthetic agent, during surgery, immediately after surgery, and 24 hours postoperatively. The surgeon recorded his subjective assessment of ease of surgery and surgical complications using a standardized template. RESULTS: Eighty-one percent of patients who received topical anesthesia and 8% of patients who received sub-Tenon's anesthesia reported no pain during delivery of the anesthetic agent. The mean pain score was 0.19 +/- 0.39 (SD) in the topical group and 1.35 +/- 0.63 in the sub-Tenon's group. The difference between groups was statistically significant (P <.001). Seventy-two percent of patients in the topical anesthesia group and 86% in the sub-Tenon's anesthesia group reported no pain or slight discomfort during surgery (mean score 1.13 +/- 1.57 and 0.57 +/- 1.28, respectively) (P <.001). Ninety percent of topical anesthesia patients and 100% of sub-Tenon's anesthesia patients reported no pain or slight discomfort 30 minutes postoperatively (mean score 0.80 +/- 0.93 and 0.12 +/- 036, respectively) (P <.001). All patients in the topical anesthesia group and 77% in the sub-Tenon's group reported no pain 24 hours postoperatively (mean pain 0.00 +/- 0.00 and 0.23 +/- 0.40, respectively) (P <.001). Complications including prolonged akinesia of the globe, chemosis, and conjunctival hemorrhage occurred significantly more frequently in the sub-Tenon's than in the topical group (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients having cataract surgery under topical anesthesia had more intraoperative and postoperative discomfort than patients receiving sub-Tenon's anesthesia. However, patients having topical anesthesia reported less pain during its administration and had fewer complications. Both anesthesia methods provided high levels of pain control without additional sedation.     

Comparison of topical and subconjunctival anesthesia in intravitreal injection administrations

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of topical and subconjunctival anesthesia in intravitreal injection administrations. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients from a university clinic with bilateral diabetic macular edema were prospectively randomized to receive intravitreal injection of 4 mg triamcinolone under topical anesthesia for one eye and subconjunctival anesthesia for the other eye by using lidocaine 4%. Patients were asked to grade the pain they experienced during administration of both anesthesia and intravitreal injection by using a 4-point pain scale: from 0=no pain to 3=severe pain. Complications that developed during both procedures were recorded. RESULTS: The mean pain score experienced during subconjunctival injections was 0.78+/-0.62, whereas no anesthesia-related pain was reported in the topical group. The mean pain score experienced during intravitreal injection was 1.64+/-0.67 in the topical and 0.85+/-0.52 in the subconjunctival group (p<0.001). The mean total pain scores of both procedures were 0.82+/-0.34 in the topical and 0.82+/-0.51 in the subconjunctival group (p>0.05). Nine eyes (32%) developed subconjunctival haemorrhage after subconjunctival injection, whereas no anesthesia-related complication developed in the topical group. Subconjunctival haemorrhage was also observed in 5 eyes (18%) in the topical group and in 11 eyes (40%) in the subconjunctival group (p>0.05) after intravitreal injection. CONCLUSIONS: Although subconjunctival anesthesia provides better pain control during intravitreal injections, its application is more painful and leads to subconjunctival haemorrhage. Moreover, the mean total pain scores are similar in both methods. Therefore, topical anesthesia may be more suitable for daily practice.     

Posterior vitrectomy under topical anesthesia

BACKGROUND: To determine the safety and efficacy of topical anesthesia in posterior vitrectomy. METHODS: A total of 93 patients (93 eyes) with various vitreoretinal diseases not needing scleral buckling and with short predicted duration of surgery underwent posterior vitrectomy under topical (49 eyes) or retrobulbar (44 eyes) anesthesia. Patients in the topical group were sedated with neuroleptic anesthesia. Postoperatively, patients were shown a visual analogue pain scale (VAPS) from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain) to rate the levels of pain. The main outcome measures were overall and worst intraoperative pain scores, duration of surgery, and pain score during the administration of the retrobulbar anesthetic agent. RESULTS: Mean surgical time was 57.9 minutes in the topical group and 56.6 minutes in the retrobulbar group (p > 0.05). The pain scores were not significantly different. Mean overall pain scores were 1.71 (SD 1.04, range 0-5) in the topical group and 1.38 (SD 1.04, range 0-3) in the retrobulbar group (p > 0.05). Mean worst pain scores were 3.20 (SD 1.30, range 1-7) and 2.95 (SD 0.73, range 1-4), respectively (p > 0.05). There was no significant correlation between duration of surgery and overall pain score in either group (r = 0.146, p = 0.356, and r = 0.174, p = 0.385, respectively). No patient required additional injection anesthesia in the topical group. INTERPRETATION: Topical anesthesia combined with systemic sedation and analgesia in posterior vitrectomy procedures provided sufficient analgesic effects in selected patients needing no scleral buckling and with short predicted surgery time.     

Safety and efficacy of two ocular anesthetic methods for phacoemulsification: topical anesthesia and viscoanesthesia (VisThesia)

PURPOSE: VisThesia is a new ophthalmic viscosurgical device (OVD) which has 1% lidocaine combined with 1.5% sodium hyaluronate. This is a prospective evaluation of the safety and efficacy of VisThesia used in association with phacoemulsification. METHODS: A total of 114 eyes were divided into two groups. Fifty-nine eyes were treated with tetracaine + oxybuprocaine topical anesthesia and DuoVisc OVD and 55 eyes were treated with VisThesia, for use as both topical anesthetic and OVD. Endothelial cell counts were measured at 30 days postoperatively and compared to preoperative baseline values. Pain and discomfort was subjectively evaluated by patients using a visual analog pain scale (0-10). RESULTS: All surgeries were uneventful with no intraoperative or immediate postoperative complications. Patients receiving topical anesthesia had a mean pain score of 1.1+/-6.8 compared to a mean score of 1.3+/-4.6 for patients receiving VisThesia (p=0.59). Postoperatively, endothelial cell loss at 1 month was greater for patients receiving VisThesia (20.32%+/-43.75) than for those receiving the topical anesthetic (8.8%+/-59.6; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The results from the visual analog pain scale were comparable between groups, showing that VisThesia provides similar pain relief to topical anesthesia. Specular microscopy performed at 30 days postoperatively showed a significantly greater loss of endothelial cells with the use of VisThesia, suggesting that the 1% lidocaine concentration used in VisThesia may be toxic to corneal endothelial cells.     

Patient comfort during clear corneal phacoemulsification with sub-Tenon's local anesthesia

PURPOSE: To assess patient comfort with and without intravenous (i.v.) cannulation during 1-quadrant sub-Tenon's anesthesia during phacoemulsification. SETTING: Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, Scotland, United Kingdom. METHODS: This prospective masked controlled clinical trial comprised 119 patients having elective clear corneal phacoemulsification. Fifty had sub-Tenon's anesthesia with an i.v. cannula; 23, sub-Tenon's anesthesia without an i.v. cannula; and 46, topical anesthesia of proparacaine 0.5% without an i.v. cannula. No patient received sedation. All patients had clear corneal phacoemulsification with foldable posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. The patients' subjective pain experience was measured immediately after surgery by a single independent observer using a 10-point visual analog scale. RESULTS: The mean patient-reported pain was low in all 3 groups. The mean i.v. cannula-related pain score in the sub-Tenon's group with an i.v. cannula (1.00; range 0 to 8) was higher than the mean general pain score (0.46; range 0 to 5) and worst pain experienced during surgery score (0.64; range 0 to 3). In the topical anesthesia group, 8 patients (17%) reported greater discomfort directly or indirectly related to the subconjunctival antibiotic injection at the end of surgery. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported pain caused by placing an i.v. cannula in the sub-Tenon's group significantly altered overall patient comfort during the surgical experience. Thus, the routine use of i.v. access during clear corneal phacoemulsification under sub-Tenon's anesthesia should be avoided to improve patient satisfaction.     

The clinical outcomes of cataract extraction by phacoemulsification in eyes with primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) and co-existing cataract: a prospective case series

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive cataract extraction by phacoemulsification, with primary intraocular lens implantation, in eyes with primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) and co-existing cataract. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive primary angle-closure glaucoma patients with co-existing visually significant cataract were invited to participate in this prospective study. After obtaining informed consent, cataract extraction by phacoemulsification through a clear corneal incision was performed under topical anesthesia. Foldable intraocular lenses were implanted in the same setting. These patients were then followed up for a minimum of 1 year. Outcome measures included intraocular pressure (IOP), requirement for glaucoma drugs, and visual acuity. RESULTS: Twenty-one primary angle-closure glaucoma eyes of 21 patients were recruited. Mean age (+/- SD) was 73.7 +/- 8.1 years (range, 60-87 years). There were 12 female patients and 9 male patients, with 13 right eyes and 8 left eyes. Nine eyes (42.9%) had history of acute primary angle closure. Mean follow-up duration was 20.7 +/- 3.6 months (range, 13-26 months). Intraocular pressure was decreased from a mean preoperative level of 19.7 +/- 6.1 mm Hg (range, 11 mm Hg-40 mm Hg) to 15.5 +/- 3.9 mm Hg (range, 9 mm Hg-26 mm Hg) at final follow-up (P = 0.022) (paired t test). The number of glaucoma eye drops required was decreased from a mean preoperative level of 1.91 +/- 0.77 (range, 1-3) to 0.52 +/- 0.87 (range, 0-3) at final follow-up (P < 0.001) (paired t test). In 10 eyes (47.6%), visual acuity improved significantly after surgery. In 9 eyes (42.9%), visual acuity remained the same. In 2 eyes (9.5%), visual acuity deteriorated significantly after surgery. Mean cup-to-disc ratio was 0.6 +/- 0.2 (range, 0.3-0.9) preoperatively, and 0.7 +/- 0.2 (range, 0.3-0.9) postoperatively (P = 0.047) (paired t test). CONCLUSIONS: In primary angle-closure glaucoma patients with co-existing cataract, cataract extraction alone (by phacoemulsification) can significantly reduce both intraocular pressure and the requirement for glaucoma drugs.     

Topical anesthesia for penetrating trabeculectomy

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and clinical practicability of topical anesthesia in comparison with retrobulbar anesthesia for penetrating trabeculectomy. METHODS: The prospective single-surgeon clinical interventional trial included 20 consecutive patients, who were randomly distributed into a topical anesthesia group ( n=10) and a retrobulbar anesthesia group ( n=10). In the topical anesthesia group, patients received preoperatively oxybuprocaine 0.4% eye drops and cocaine hydrochloride eye drops 10%. The patients of the retrobulbar group received 5 ml mepivacaine 2% injected into the retrobulbar space. To assess intraoperative pain, each patient was asked immediately after surgery to quantitate his/her pain using a 10-point pain rating scale. RESULTS: The topical anesthesia group and the retrobulbar anesthesia study group did not vary significantly in duration of surgery (21.5+/-3.37 min vs 20.2+/-4.46 min, P=0.31), preoperative intraocular pressure (32.2+/-14.62 mmHg vs 30.6+/-12.33 mmHg, P=0.22), postoperative intraocular pressure (8.0+/-4.47 mmHg vs 9.12+/-3.13 mmHg, P=0.64), subjective pain score by the patient (2.25+/-1.23 relative units vs 2.33+/-1.08 relative units ( P= 0.71), and practicability score by the surgeon (2.24+/-1.76 vs 2.56+/-1.58, P=0.82). CONCLUSIONS: In view of its clinical feasibility and its minimally invasive character, topical anesthesia may be an option for penetrating trabeculectomy.     

Phacoemulsification with topical anesthesia: Resident experience

PURPOSE: To compare the intraoperative and postoperative complications and outcomes of phacoemulsification performed by residents using topical and retrobulbar anesthesia. SETTING: Two university ophthalmology departments. METHODS: One hundred fifty phacoemulsification procedures were performed by 3 residents who used retrobulbar anesthesia (retrobulbar group), and 146 phacoemulsification procedures were performed by another 3 residents who used topical anesthesia and who had no experience with retrobulbar or peribulbar anesthesia (topical group). Case notes were prospectively compared. The data analyzed included the ocular history, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and final best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA). RESULTS: There were no differences between the 2 groups in complication rates. Anterior capsule tears occurred in 8 eyes (5.3%) in the retrobulbar group and 7 eyes (4.7%) in topical group. Capsulorhexis was continuous but not curvilinear in 14 eyes (9.3%) and 12 eyes (8.2%), respectively. Capsulorhexis tear or posterior capsule rupture that necessitated conversion to extracapsular cataract extraction occurred in 3 eyes (2.0%) in the retrobulbar group and in 1 eye (0.6%) in the topical group. Posterior capsule rupture with vitreous loss occurred in 10 eyes (6.6%) and 9 eyes (6.1%), respectively. Loss of lens fragments in the vitreous cavity occurred in 3 eyes (2.0%) and 4 eyes (2.7%), respectively. The 63 postoperative complications (41 eyes [27.3%], retrobulbar group; 22 eyes [15.0%], topical group) included cystoid macular edema, intraocular lens decentration, endophthalmitis, bullous keratopathy, transient intraocular pressure elevation, temporary corneal edema, and vitreous hemorrhage. Some cases had more than 1 complication. The BSCVA, including in eyes with preexisting ocular pathology, was 20/40 or better in 86.7% in the retrobulbar group and 84.9% in the topical group. CONCLUSION: When supervised and in selected patients, residents who have no retrobulbar or peribulbar anesthesia experience can safely perform phacoemulsification using topical anesthesia.     

Efficacy of topical plus intracameral anesthesia for cataract surgery in high myopia: randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of intracameral lidocaine supplementation of topical anesthesia during cataract surgery in eyes with high myopia. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Ospedale San Pietro-Fatebenefratelli, Rome, Italy. METHODS: This prospective double-blind study comprised 120 highly myopic eyes with an axial length (AL) greater than 26.0 mm scheduled for routine cataract surgery. Cases were divided into 2 groups of 60 eyes each. One group received a placebo of balanced salt solution (BSS) (control group) and the other group, a supplement of 0.1 mL preservative-free lidocaine hydrochloride 1% injected in the capsular bag during hydrodissection (lidocaine group). Intraoperative pain was assessed by recording spontaneous patient reports of sensation of pain or ocular discomfort during 3 surgical stages: phaco tip insertion, irrigation/aspiration (I/A) system insertion for cortical aspiration, I/A system insertion for ophthalmic viscosurgical device removal after intraocular lens implantation. Postoperative pain was assessed on a visual analog scale (range 0 to 10). Data were compared by chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: The overall mean AL was 28.58 mm (28.57 mm control group; 28.50 mm lidocaine group). Fewer patients in the lidocaine group reported intraoperative pain, ocular discomfort, or tissue manipulation (odds ratio=0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.80; P= .019). The mean postoperative pain score was 1.88+/-2.17 (SD) in the control group and 1.36+/-2.02 in the lidocaine group; the difference was not statistically significant (P= .21). CONCLUSION: Intracameral lidocaine supplementation for cataract surgery may improve intraoperative comfort under topical anesthesia in highly myopic eyes.     

Topical anesthesia using lidocaine gel for cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of topical anesthesia using lidocaine gel in cataract surgery. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Meir Hospital, Sapir Medical Center, Kfar-Saba, Israel. METHODS: One hundred cataract procedures (48 manual extracapsular cataract extraction [ECCE] and 52 phacoemulsification) were performed using lidocaine 2% gel as the sole anesthetic agent. The gel was applied 3 to 5 times prior to surgery. Intraoperative and postoperative data were recorded, and patients were asked to grade the pain on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain). RESULTS: Sixty-two percent of patients having manual ECCE and 74% having phacoemulsification reported no pain during surgery (score 0). The mean pain score in the manual ECCE group was 0.99 +/- 1.64 (SD); 3 patients required an additional intracameral lidocaine injection. The mean score in the phacoemulsification group was 0.72 +/- 1.47; no patient required additional anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Topical application using lidocaine 2% gel is safe and highly effective, especially in clear corneal phacoemulsification. The gel also provides prolonged lubrication, further facilitating surgery.     

Patient's pain feeling and surgeon's comfort--ECCE versus phacoemulsification

PURPOSE: To compare patient's pain and surgeon's comfort during ECCE performed under retrobulbar anesthesia and phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 120 patients scheduled for planned routine cataract extraction were divided in 2 groups: group 1-60 eyes, ECCE under retrobulbar anesthesia and group II-60 eyes, phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia. Immediately after operation patients were asked, to answer questions about their feeling during surgery. Simultaneously, the surgeon filled up the questionnaire, concerning patients behavior during the entire procedure. RESULTS: Statistically significant higher level of pain was reported in group I (ECCE). The most painful moment of the procedure was retrobulbar injection. During surgery pain feeling in both groups was similar. Both types of anesthesia provided very good level of surgeon's comfort. The longer operation, the higher level of pain and lower surgeon's comfort were reported in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients having ECCE performed under retrobulbar anesthesia reported more pain comparing to phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia. Both anesthesia methods provided high level of surgeon's comfort.     

Aqueous humor levels of topically applied bupivacaine 0.75% in cataract surgery

PURPOSE: To measure the intraocular levels of bupivacaine 0.75% topically applied before phacoemulsification and to develop standards for topical anesthesia in cataract surgery. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom. METHODS: Forty eyes having phacoemulsification for senile cataract under topical anesthesia without sedation were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 preoperative topical anesthesia regimens. Bupivacaine 0.75% was applied in 0.1 mL drops 3 times in the 30 minutes before surgery in 18 eyes and 6 times in the 60 minutes before surgery in 22 eyes. Aqueous humor and serum samples were taken at the start of surgery and the bupivacaine levels measured. A visual analog pain score scale was used to indicate intraoperative pain. RESULTS: The mean aqueous humor level of bupivacaine was 5.9 microg/mL +/- 4.3 (SD) after 3 drops and 5.7 +/- 4.0 microg /mL after 6 drops. The blood levels were less than 1.0 microg/mL. There was no statistically significant difference in the intraocular level of bupivacaine between the 2 groups. There was no difference in the age or sex distribution between the 2 groups, although there was an increase in the intraocular level of bupivacaine with age (approximately 1.4 microg/mL per decade; P =.048). There was no clear pattern associating the pain score with age, sex, or intraocular level of bupivacaine. CONCLUSIONS: A 3-drop regimen of bupivacaine 0.75% in the half hour before cataract surgery penetrated the eye as effectively as 6 drops in the 1 hour before surgery and provided good analgesia for phacoemulsification. Bupivacaine 0.75% penetrated the eye increasingly effectively with increasing age.     

A randomized controlled trial of intracameral lidocaine during phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that adjunctive intracameral 1% lidocaine reduces intraoperative pain during phacoemulsification using topical anesthesia. DESIGN: Prospective, double-masked, randomized, controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 200 patients undergoing routine phacoemulsification under topical 1% tetracaine were studied. INTERVENTION: Randomization to 0.5 ml intracameral, unpreserved, epinephrine-free 1% lidocaine or placebo was conducted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Intraoperative pain was quantified by the patients using a 0-10 visual analog pain scale. RESULTS: Intraoperative pain scores (+/- standard deviation) for the lidocaine and control groups were 1.29 +/-1.24 and 1.44 +/- 1.33, respectively (P > 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: In a rigorously double-masked, prospective, randomized, controlled trial there was no significant reduction in intraoperative pain when intracameral 1% lidocaine was used during phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia.     

Surgeon experience and patient comfort during clear corneal phacoemulsification under topical local anesthesia

PURPOSE: To evaluate patient comfort during topical anesthesia clear corneal phacoemulsification surgery performed by a surgeon in the learning curve or by an experienced surgeon. SETTING: Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, Scotland, United Kingdom. METHODS: This study comprised 46 consecutive patients having phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia of proparacaine 0.5% (Proxymetacaine. Surgery was performed by a surgeon during his learning curve (n = 20) or by an experienced surgeon (n = 26). No sedation or intracameral anesthesia was used in either group. All patients had clear corneal phacoemulsification with foldable acrylic posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. Each patient's subjective experience of overall pain perioperatively (period immediately surrounding and during surgery) and worst pain perceived during surgery was measured immediately after surgery using a 10-point visual analog scale. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in patient-reported pain scores for overall pain perioperatively (P =.47, Wilcoxon rank sum test) and the worst pain perceived during surgery (P =.32, Wilcoxon rank sum test). CONCLUSIONS: Topical anesthesia with proparacaine provided similar and reasonable analgesic effects in patients having surgery by a surgeon in the learning curve and those having surgery by an experienced surgeon. The discomfort perceived during surgery performed by an experienced surgeon was less, although not statistically significantly different.     

Patient pain during different stages of phacoemulsification using topical anesthesia.

PURPOSE: To assess the pain experienced by patients during the different stages of phacoemulsification cataract surgery performed under topical anesthesia. SETTING: Ophthalmic teaching hospital, Dublin, Ireland. METHODS: This prospective study comprised 100 consecutive patients having phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia. Patients were asked to grade the pain they experienced during the different stages of the procedure using a visual analog pain scale from 0 to 10. The pain experienced during the procedure was compared with that experienced after the instillation of a drop of amethocaine. RESULTS: The overall mean pain score was 1.46. The highest mean pain score, which was during the phacoemulsification stage of the procedure, was not significantly more than the score for the administration of the topical anesthetic agent. The duration of surgery was not related to the level of pain during the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Topical anesthesia was effective in phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Because the highest mean score was not significantly higher than that for the administration of the anesthetic agent, it is possible to counsel patients before surgery that the pain they experience during the procedure will be no worse than that during administration of the anesthetic drops.     

Pain, photophobia, and retinal and optic nerve function after phacoemulsification with intracameral lidocaine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in pain, photophobia, retinal and optic nerve function in test eyes given intracameral lidocaine compared with control eyes given intracameral saline after phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia. DESIGN: Prospective paired-eye intervention study with random treatment allocation. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty eyes of 15 patients underwent cataract surgery in both eyes under topical anesthesia. INTERVENTION: The first eye of each patient was randomly assigned to either 0.5 ml preservative-free 2% intracameral lidocaine or 0.5 ml of intracameral sterile saline. Within 5 months, the second eye automatically received intracameral saline if the first eye received intracameral lidocaine or vice versa. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The duration of surgery was recorded. Immediately after surgery, each patient was asked to evaluate the degree of pain and photophobia experienced during surgery using a nominal scale. In addition, in five patients, electroretinography (ERG) and visual evoked response (VER) were performed within 1 week before surgery, immediately after surgery, and 1 day after surgery. Amplitudes and latencies were calculated. RESULTS: There was no difference in the duration of surgery comparing test eyes given intracameral lidocaine with control eyes given sterile saline (P = 0.81). There was no significant difference in the level of pain reported when comparing test eyes given intracameral lidocaine with control eyes (P = 1.00). None of the patients reported any significant difference in photophobia between their two eyes (P = 1.00). When comparing ERG measurements, test eyes given intracameral lidocaine did not show any significant decrease in ERG amplitudes or prolonged latencies compared with control eyes. When comparing VER measurements, test eyes given intracameral lidocaine did not show any increase in P1 latencies compared with control eyes (P = 0.31). When evaluating all postoperative ERG results 1 day after surgery, there was a suggestion of improved cone function. CONCLUSIONS: Although intracameral lidocaine does not depress retinal or optic nerve function, the addition of intracameral lidocaine to topical anesthesia during phacoemulsification does not significantly reduce intraoperative pain or photophobia.     

Combined topical and intracameral anesthesia in penetrating keratoplasty

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) is either retrobulbar or peribulbar anesthesia combined with seventh cranial nerve akinesia or general anesthesia. These methods are known to be associated with rare but potentially serious adverse ocular and systemic events. PURPOSE: To determine the safety and efficacy of combined topical and intracameral anesthesia in addition to intravenous sedation for repeat penetrating keratoplasty (PKP). SETTING: Tertiary-care university hospital. METHODS: In this prospective study, combined topical tetracaine 0.5% and 0.2 cc intracameral 1% lidocaine along with i.v. sedation with midazolam and fentanyl were used for patients undergoing repeat PKP in 15 eyes of 15 selected patients. The indication for surgery was failed corneal graft. Verbal pain scale (VPS, 0-3) was recorded preoperatively, intraoperatively at 3 time-points (after trephination, after placing 8 interrupted sutures, and after placing the running suture), and postoperatively (1 hour postoperatively, overnight pain, and 1 day postoperatively). Patient and surgeon satisfaction were assessed postoperatively using a scale (1-5). After surgery patients were asked for their preferences comparing the current use of topical anesthesia compared with retrobulbar anesthesia used for their initial PKP. RESULTS: The mean intraoperative VPS score was 0.51 +/- 0.32 (range 0-1.33), and the mean postoperative VPS score was 0.47 +/- 0.50 (range 0-1.67). There were no serious intraoperative or postoperative complications. All patients reported high mean satisfaction score of 4.67 +/- 0.49 (range 4-5). The mean satisfaction score reported by the surgeon was 4.47 +/- 0.63 (range 3-5). All patients but 1 (93.3%) preferred combined topical over retrobulbar anesthesia, which they had in their previous surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We found combined topical and intracameral anesthesia to be safe and effective in our selected group of patients undergoing repeat PKP, and it may provide a satisfactory alternative anesthetic modality for patients in whom general, retrobulbar, or peribulbar anesthesia may be contraindicated.     

Cataract surgery under topical anesthesia in patients with coexisting glaucoma

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare levels of patient discomfort and complications during phacoemulsification with implantation of a foldable intraocular lens (IOL) under topical lidocaine hydrochloride in patients with and without various forms of chronic open-angle and chronic angle-closure glaucoma. SETTING: Two university eye centers in Germany. METHODS: This prospective nonrandomized comparative study comprised 176 eyes of 176 patients with various forms of chronic open-angle glaucoma and chronic angle-closure glaucoma. Eyes with cataract and without a glaucoma diagnosis or history of intraocular surgery served as a control group (n = 212). All patients received a minimum of 5 doses (2 drops per dose) of topical lidocaine hydrochloride 2% before standard temporal clear corneal phacoemulsification and foldable IOL implantation. No intracameral anesthetic injection was given, and no systemic sedatives were used. The main outcome measures were the number of complications and adverse events. RESULTS: The intraoperative complication rate in all patients (n = 388) was capsule tear, 1.3%; zonule tear, 1.8%; vitreous loss, 1.0%; iris prolapse, 0.8%. No statistically significant differences in intraoperative or early postoperative complications were found between the glaucoma and control groups. The mean pain scores of patients were 0.38 +/- 1.1 (SD) in the glaucoma group and 0.36 +/- 0.8 in the control group (P =.21) Patient preference for cataract surgery under topical anesthesia was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery-related complications and patient discomfort were similar in patients with and without glaucoma who had phacoemulsification and IOL implantation under topical anesthesia. These results indicate that topical anesthesia is safe for routine phacoemulsification with foldable IOL implantation in patients with glaucoma and does not compromise patient comfort.     

Effect of midazolam on anxiety level and pain perception in cataract surgery with topical anesthesia

PURPOSE: To study the effect of sedation on patients' anxiety level and perception of pain during cataract surgery under topical anesthesia. SETTING: Royal Eye Infirmary, Plymouth, England. METHODS: This prospective controlled double-blind clinical trial comprised 100 consecutive patients having routine phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation under topical anesthesia by a single experienced surgeon. Patients were randomized to receive intravenous midazolam (0.015 mg/kg body weight) 15 minutes before surgery or no sedation. The main evaluation criteria were the anxiety based on the 6-item, short form of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the pain score using a visual analog scale, and overall patient satisfaction. RESULTS: All operations were uneventful, and no side effects were noted from the use of midazolam. Anxiety scores were significantly higher on arrival at the hospital than just before the commencement and after the conclusion of the surgery in both groups (P<.05). Patients were less anxious after administration of midazolam, but this did not achieve statistical significance. The mean pain score was 0.29 (range 0 to 4) in the sedation group and 0.38 (range 0 to 4) in the control group; the difference between groups was not statistically significant. The patients were equally satisfied in both groups, with mean scores of 3.84 (range 0 to 4) and 3.88 (range 2 to 4), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had cataract surgery under topical anesthesia were highly satisfied with their operative experience and reported minimal pain during surgery. Anxiety levels diminished after arrival at the hospital, possibly because of reassurance by experienced staff. Intravenous midazolam did not seem to significantly reduce pain or anxiety.