-
Burns : Journal of the International... Jun 2018Diphoterine is a hypertonic, amphoteric, polyvalent and chelating decontamination solution used in the treatment of cutaneous and ocular chemical burns. Due to...
OBJECTIVE
Diphoterine is a hypertonic, amphoteric, polyvalent and chelating decontamination solution used in the treatment of cutaneous and ocular chemical burns. Due to infrequent use by emergency physicians along with the small number of available studies, its debate in the literature as to its efficacy and safety remains inconclusive.
METHODS
A structured literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE BIOLOGICAL ABSTRACTS and TOXNET to June 2016 for original English-language studies reporting on the safety and effectiveness of Diphoterine. Methodological and reporting quality of pre-clinical animal studies was assessed using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool and Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. Clinical studies were assessed using Chambers' criteria.
RESULTS
13 studies (seven in the pre-clinical, five in the clinical setting and one mixed) met the study inclusion criteria. Pre-clinical studies showed a faster resolution of pH and reduced tissue necrosis with Diphoterine. Clinical studies showed reduced tissue necrosis/severity of symptoms, faster pH resolution and a reduction in pain when using Diphoterine. No adverse events were attributable to Diphoterine. Reporting and methodology of the studies was poor or showed a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Diphoterine appears to be safe to use and is probably superior to other rinsing solutions. However, immediate decontamination is imperative and if Diphoterine is not available a different rinsing solution should be used. The methodology of the published literature for Diphoterine is generally poor and future publications should use the frameworks given as templates.
Topics: Burns, Chemical; Eye Burns; Humans; Organic Chemicals; Skin
PubMed: 29029860
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2017.09.017 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Despite potential analgesic benefits from topical ophthalmic amides and esters, their outpatient use has become of concern because of the potential for abuse and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite potential analgesic benefits from topical ophthalmic amides and esters, their outpatient use has become of concern because of the potential for abuse and ophthalmic complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of topical ophthalmic anesthetics compared with placebo or other treatments in persons with corneal abrasions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase.com; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), without restriction on language or year of publication. The search was performed on 10 February 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of topical ophthalmic anesthetics alone or in combination with another treatment (e.g. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)) versus a non-anesthetic control group (e.g. placebo, non-treatment, or alternative treatment). We included trials that enrolled participants of all ages who had corneal abrasions within 48 hours of presentation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine parallel-group RCTs with a total of 556 participants (median number of participants per study: 45, interquartile range (IQR) 44 to 74), conducted in eight countries: Australia, Canada, France, South Korea, Turkey, New Zealand, UK, and USA. Study characteristics and risk of bias Four RCTs (314 participants) investigated post-traumatic corneal abrasions diagnosed in the emergency department setting. Five trials described 242 participants from ophthalmology surgery centers with post-surgical corneal defects: four from photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and one from pterygium surgery. Study duration ranged from two days to six months, the most common being one week (four RCTs). Treatment duration ranged from three hours to one week (nine RCTs); the majority were between 24 and 48 hours (five RCTs). The age of participants was reported in eight studies, ranging from 17 to 74 years of age. Only one participant in one trial was under 18 years of age. Of four studies that reported funding sources, none was industry-sponsored. We judged a high risk of bias in one trial with respect to the outcome pain control by 48 hours, and in five of seven trials with respect to the outcome complications at the furthest time point. The domain for which we assessed studies to be at the highest risk of bias was missing or selective reporting of outcome data. Findings The treatments investigated included topical anesthetics compared with placebo, topical anesthetic compared with NSAID (post-surgical cases), and topical anesthetics plus NSAID compared with placebo (post-surgical cases). Pain control by 24 hours In all studies, self-reported pain outcomes were on a 10-point scale, where lower numbers represent less pain. In post-surgical trials, topical anesthetics provided a moderate reduction in self-reported pain at 24 hours compared with placebo of 1.28 points on a 10-point scale (mean difference (MD) -1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.76 to -0.80; 3 RCTs, 119 participants). In the post-trauma participants, there may be little or no difference in effect (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.02; 1 RCT, 76 participants). Compared with NSAID in post-surgical participants, topical anesthetics resulted in a slight increase in pain at 24 hours (MD 0.82, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.63; 1 RCT, 74 participants). One RCT compared topical anesthetics plus NSAID to placebo. There may be a large reduction in pain at 24 hours with topical anesthetics plus NSAID in post-surgical participants, but the evidence to support this large effect is very uncertain (MD -5.72, 95% CI -7.35 to -4.09; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pain control by 48 hours Compared with placebo, topical anesthetics reduced post-trauma pain substantially by 48 hours (MD -5.68, 95% CI -6.38 to -4.98; 1 RCT, 111 participants) but had little to no effect on post-surgical pain (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 44 participants), although the evidence is very uncertain. Pain control by 72 hours One post-surgical RCT showed little or no effect of topical anesthetics compared with placebo by 72 hours (MD 0.49, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.04; 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Proportion of participants with unresolved epithelial defects When compared with placebo or NSAID, topical anesthetics increased the number of participants without complete resolution of defects in trials of post-trauma participants (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.42; 3 RCTs, 221 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The proportion of placebo-treated post-surgical participants with unresolved epithelial defects at 24 to 72 hours was lower when compared with those assigned to topical anesthetics (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or topical anesthetics plus NSAID (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.85; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Proportion of participants with complications at the longest follow-up When compared with placebo or NSAID, topical anesthetics resulted in a higher proportion of post-trauma participants with complications at up to two weeks (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.46; 3 RCTs, 242 participants) and post-surgical participants with complications at up to one week (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 128.02; 1 RCT, 44 participants). When topical anesthetic plus NSAID was compared with placebo, no complications were reported in either treatment arm up to one week post-surgery (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12; 1 RCT, 30 participants). The evidence is very uncertain for safety outcomes. Quality of life None of the included trials assessed quality of life outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite topical anesthetics providing excellent pain control in the intraoperative setting, the currently available evidence provides little or no certainty about their efficacy for reducing ocular pain in the initial 24 to 72 hours after a corneal abrasion, whether from unintentional trauma or surgery. We have very low confidence in this evidence as a basis to recommend topical anesthetics as an efficacious treatment modality to relieve pain from corneal abrasions. We also found no evidence of a substantial effect on epithelial healing up to 72 hours or a reduction in ocular complications when we compared anesthetics alone or with NSAIDs versus placebo.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Young Adult; Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Anesthetics, Local; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Analgesics; Corneal Injuries; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37555621
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015091.pub2 -
Industrial Psychiatry Journal 2020Esports is an electronic sport known as competitive video gaming, which has seen tremendous growth over the past few years. Unlike traditional sports such as hockey,... (Review)
Review
Esports is an electronic sport known as competitive video gaming, which has seen tremendous growth over the past few years. Unlike traditional sports such as hockey, baseball, and soccer, Esports is an interconnection of multiple platforms, computing, gaming, and media into a sport event. A systematic review was conducted to collate and review all the research studies concerning Esports from a health perspective and analyze various physical and psychological distress regarding Esports. Relevant published papers were identified through the electronic databases Google Scholar, PubMed, and Research Gate. As a result of the systematic research review, seven articles were identified that investigated three major domains (i) Esports and physical issues, (ii) Esports and psychological distress, and (iii) Esports and addiction. The result indicated that Esports excessive play and its competitive nature lead to physical and psychological problems. Physical issues include eye fatigue, blurry vision, low back pain, tension headache, wrist pain, hand pain, and poor posture while gaming. Psychological issues include depression, anxiety, apathy, uncooperative attitude, tense, sleep disturbances, mental distress, aggressive affect and behaviors, distress in social life, and emotional disturbances. The studies also found that long hours of online gaming was associated with the presence of depression, social phobia, obsession-compulsion, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, psychoticism attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and gaming addiction. This review draws insight into the problematic side of Esports and suggested that future studies must focus on the interventions to deal with the negative impact of Esports.
PubMed: 34158701
DOI: 10.4103/ipj.ipj_195_20 -
Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 2020The intravitreal injection has become one of the most commonly performed procedures in ophthalmology; however, there is no standardized approach to anesthesia during the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The intravitreal injection has become one of the most commonly performed procedures in ophthalmology; however, there is no standardized approach to anesthesia during the procedure. The goal of this systematic review is to review approaches to anesthesia for intravitreal injection and look at comparative efficacy between these different anesthetics.
METHODS
A systematic review of literature was performed in the MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases using the key words "anesthesia", "pain management", and "intravitreal injection". Of the initial 239 search matches, 30 articles were found to be relevant to the topic. 18 studies were excluded as they did not include primary data or did not include the visual analog scale as a primary outcome. The remaining 12 articles were assessed to look at the comparative efficacy of anesthesia and adverse events.
RESULTS
The anesthesia techniques reported include topical methods such as anesthetic eyedrops, anesthetic gels, and anesthetic-soaked pledgets as well as subconjunctival injection of anesthetic. Ultimately, no single anesthetic or delivery mechanism was shown to be superior to the others in a statistically significant way and adverse events were largely insignificant. Limitations of these studies include relatively small sizes of the studies, as well as the lack of masking which may introduce bias.
CONCLUSION
In the current literature, no type of anesthetic method was found to be superior to another for intravitreal injection. Future studies in this area may lead to new insights into the efficacy of different forms of intravitreal anesthesia.
PubMed: 32161439
DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S223530 -
Pain Practice : the Official Journal of... Sep 2022Premature neonates require regular ophthalmological examination, generally indirect ophthalmoscopy, to screen for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). Conventional... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Premature neonates require regular ophthalmological examination, generally indirect ophthalmoscopy, to screen for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). Conventional analgesia is provided with topical anesthetic eyedrops and oral sugar solution, but neonates still experience significant pain. Here, the literature base was examined to evaluate the usefulness of other pharmacological analgesics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was undertaken, adhering to a PROSPERO preregistered protocol in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (identifier CRD42022302459). Electronic databases were searched for primary research articles on pharmacological pain interventions used for ROP screening in neonates. The primary outcome measure was pain scores recorded using validated pain scoring tools, with and without pharmacological interventions in neonates during eye examination. For analysis, studies were separated into two categories: topical anesthesia and alternative pharmacological treatments.
RESULTS
Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Topical analgesia, oral paracetamol, and intranasal fentanyl were found to be effective in reducing the pain of eye examination. Oral morphine and inhaled nitrous oxide had no significant effect on premature infant pain profile (PIPP) scores during indirect ophthalmoscopy.
DISCUSSION
In addition to topical anesthesia, premedication with oral paracetamol is recommended during screening examination for ROP. The routine use of fentanyl is not recommended due to the risk of potential side effects. Non-pharmacological measures, such as sweet oral solutions and comfort techniques should also be employed. Further research is required to determine whether the use of nitrous oxide has a role, and to develop a safe and effective analgesic strategy to fully ameliorate the pain of ROP screening.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesia; Fentanyl; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Nitrous Oxide; Pain; Pain Measurement; Retinopathy of Prematurity
PubMed: 35703418
DOI: 10.1111/papr.13138 -
Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research 2021Several studies have reported the characteristics of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet there is a gap in our understanding of the ocular manifestations of...
Several studies have reported the characteristics of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet there is a gap in our understanding of the ocular manifestations of COVID-19. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated the prevalence of ocular manifestations in COVID-19 patients. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and medRxiv from December 1, 2019 to August 11, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened the articles, abstracted the data, and assessed the quality of included studies in duplicate. Thirty-eight studies were eligible after screening of 895 unique articles, with a total of 8,219 COVID-19 patients (55.3% female; = 3,486 out of 6,308 patients). Using data extracted from cross-sectional studies, we performed random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the pooled prevalence of ocular symptoms along with 95% confidence interval (CI). The prevalence of ocular manifestations was estimated to be 11.03% (95% CI: 5.71-17.72). In the studies that reported the details of observed ocular symptoms, the most common ocular manifestations were dry eye or foreign body sensation ( = 138, 16%), redness ( = 114, 13.3%), tearing ( = 111, 12.8%), itching ( = 109, 12.6%), eye pain ( = 83, 9.6%) and discharge ( = 76, 8.8%). Moreover, conjunctivitis had the highest rate among reported ocular diseases in COVID-19 patients (79 out of 89, 88.8%). The results suggest that approximately one out of ten COVID-19 patients show at least one ocular symptom. Attention to ocular manifestations, especially conjunctivitis, can increase the sensitivity of COVID-19 detection among patients.
PubMed: 33520133
DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v16i1.8256 -
Contact Lens & Anterior Eye : the... Jun 2024To evaluate the relative contributions of objective and subjective indicators of dry eye disease (DED) in individuals with chronic pain conditions compared with controls. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the relative contributions of objective and subjective indicators of dry eye disease (DED) in individuals with chronic pain conditions compared with controls.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of studies that reported the signs and symptoms of DED and/or their prevalence in individuals with chronic pain compared with controls. International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11 codes for chronic pain conditions were applied, and outcomes defined as DED signs and symptoms. A search strategy utilised the EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Random effects meta-analysis calculated mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR), while subgroup analysis of different chronic pain conditions explored their relative association with the signs and symptoms of DED. Evidence certainty was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).
RESULTS
Fourteen observational studies comprising 3,281,882 individuals were included. Meta-analysis found high quality evidence that individuals with chronic pain were more likely to experience symptoms of DED than controls (OR = 3.51 [95 %CI: 3.45,3.57]). These symptoms were more severe (MD = 18.53 [95 %CI: 11.90, 25.15]) than controls with a clinically meaningful effect size. Individuals with chronic pain had more rapid tear film disruption (MD = -2.45 [95 %CI: -4.20, -0.70]) and reduced tear production (MD = -5.57 [95 %CI: -9.56, -1.57]) compared with controls (with moderate evidence quality). High quality evidence revealed individuals with chronic pain had lower basal tear production (anaesthetised) than controls (MD = -2.59 [95 %CI: -3.60, -1.58]). Tear film osmolarity showed no significant differences between the chronic pain and pain-free groups. Group differences for DED signs were not considered clinically meaningful.
CONCLUSION
More severe, clinically meaningful symptoms of DED were reported in individuals with chronic pain than controls, however group differences for the signs of DED were typically of limited or questionable clinical relevance. This ocular phenotype where DED is felt more than it is seen in chronic pain may reflect underlying sensory hypersensitivity, shared by both conditions and contributing to their frequent comorbidity. Advancing understanding of this potential pathophysiological mechanism may guide clinical management.
PubMed: 38851945
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2024.102248 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016Published audits have demonstrated that corneal abrasions are a common presenting eye complaint. Eye patches are often recommended for treating corneal abrasions despite... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Published audits have demonstrated that corneal abrasions are a common presenting eye complaint. Eye patches are often recommended for treating corneal abrasions despite the lack of evidence for their use. This systematic review was conducted to determine the effects of the eye patch when used to treat corneal abrasions.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of patching for corneal abrasion on healing and pain relief.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to May 2016), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to May 2016), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenGrey) (January 1995 to May 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 9 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of included studies, unpublished 'grey' literature and conference proceedings and contacted pharmaceutical companies for details of unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared patching the eye with no patching to treat simple corneal abrasions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Investigators were contacted for further information regarding the quality of trials. The primary outcome was healing at 24, 48 and 72 hours while secondary outcomes included measures of pain, quality of life and adverse effects. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 trials which randomised a total of 1080 participants in the review. Four trials were conducted in the United Kingdom, another four in the United States of America, two in Canada, one in Brazil and one in Switzerland. Seven trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains and one trial was judged to be low risk of bias in all domains. The rest were a combination of low risk or unclear.People receiving a patch may be less likely to have a healed corneal abrasion after 24 hours compared to those not receiving a patch (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.00, 7 trials, 531 participants, low certainty evidence). Similar numbers of people in the patch and no-patch groups were healed by 48 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02, 6 trials, 497 participants, moderate certainty evidence) and 72 hours (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05, 4 trials, 430 participants, moderate certainty evidence). Participants receiving a patch took slightly longer to heal but the difference was small and probably unimportant (mean difference (MD) 0.14 days longer, 95% CI 0 to 0.27 days longer, 6 trials, 642 participants, moderate certainty evidence).Ten trials reported pain scores. Most studies reported pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS). It was not possible to pool the data because it was skewed. In general, similar pain ratings were seen between patch and no-patch groups. Data from two trials reporting presence or absence of pain at 24 hours was inconclusive. There was a higher risk of reported pain in the patch group but wide confidence intervals compatible with higher or lower risk of pain (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.65, 2 trials, 193 participants, low certainty evidence). Five trials compared analgesic use between the patch and no-patch groups. Data from three of these trials could be combined and suggested similar analgesic use in the patch and no-patch groups but with some uncertainty (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.32, 256 participants, low certainty evidence). Frequently reported symptoms included photophobia, lacrimation, foreign body sensation and blurred vision but there was little evidence to suggest any difference in these symptoms in people with or without a patch.Activities of daily living (ADL) were assessed in one study involving children. There was little difference in ADL with the exception of walking which was reported to be more difficult with a patch on: VAS 1.7 cm (SD 2.1) versus 0.3 cm (SD 0.7).Complication rates were low across studies and there is uncertainty about the relative effects of patching or not patching with respect to these (RR 3.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 12.05, 8 trials, 660 participants, low certainty evidence). Three trials reporting rates of compliance to treatment found that 22% of participants did not have their eye patches during follow-up. No-patch groups generally received more adjuvant treatment with antibiotics or cycloplegics, or both, than the patch group. There were limited data on the effect of patching on abrasions greater than 10mm(2) in size.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Trials included in this review suggest that treating simple corneal abrasions with a patch may not improve healing or reduce pain. It must be noted that, in these trials, participants who did not receive a patch were more likely to receive additional treatment, for example with antibiotics. Overall we judged the certainty of evidence to be moderate to low. Further research should focus on designing and implementing better quality trials and examining the effectiveness of patching for large abrasions.
Topics: Analgesics; Corneal Injuries; Eye Foreign Bodies; Humans; Occlusive Dressings; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Wound Healing
PubMed: 27457359
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004764.pub3 -
Survey of Ophthalmology 2015Pain in ophthalmic surgery is a neglected area. We systematically reviewed the factors associated with postoperative pain and analgesic consumption in ophthalmic surgery... (Review)
Review
Pain in ophthalmic surgery is a neglected area. We systematically reviewed the factors associated with postoperative pain and analgesic consumption in ophthalmic surgery and found 12 studies with 1,515 participants. The median number of patients in the included studies was 59. Female sex, longer duration of surgical procedure, second eye surgery as a consecutive procedure, type of surgery, general anesthesia, lower satisfaction with anesthesia, and postoperative nausea may contribute to increased postoperative pain intensity. Type of surgery, type of anesthesia, and patient satisfaction with anesthesia were associated with increased analgesic consumption. The studies reviewed were heterogeneous in terms of surgical procedures, patient populations, tools for pain assessment, and timing of postoperative pain measurement. Multiple factors may be associated with increased postoperative pain and analgesic consumption and warrant further research.
Topics: Analgesics; Eye Pain; Female; Humans; Male; Ophthalmologic Surgical Procedures; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Risk Factors
PubMed: 25890623
DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2014.10.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Cataract is a major cause of blindness worldwide. Unless medically contraindicated, cataract surgery is usually performed under local (regional) anaesthesia. Local... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cataract is a major cause of blindness worldwide. Unless medically contraindicated, cataract surgery is usually performed under local (regional) anaesthesia. Local anaesthesia involves the blockage of a nerve subserving a given part of the body. It involves infiltration of the area around the nerve with local anaesthetic. The two main approaches in the eye are retrobulbar and peribulbar. There is debate over whether the peribulbar approach provides more effective, safer anaesthesia for cataract surgery than retrobulbar block.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of peribulbar anaesthesia (PB) compared to retrobulbar anaesthesia (RB) on pain scores, ocular akinesia, patient acceptability and ocular and systemic complications.
SEARCH METHODS
In the previous version of our review, we searched the databases until December 2007. In this updated version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (March 2015); MEDLINE (1960 to March 2015); and EMBASE (1980 to March 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled clinical trials comparing peribulbar anaesthesia and retrobulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for additional information, study methodology and missing data. We carried out a descriptive narrative of results as the included studies used varied methods for reporting the outcomes. We performed a subgroup analysis for globe akinesia.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six trials involving 1438 participants. Three of the six trials had adequate sequence generation while all the trials had unclear allocation concealment There was no evidence of any difference in pain perception during surgery with either retrobulbar or peribulbar anaesthesia. Both were largely effective. There was no evidence of any difference in complete akinesia or the need for further injections of local anaesthetic. Conjunctival chemosis was more common after peribulbar block (relative risk (RR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46 to 3.05) and lid haematoma was more common after retrobulbar block (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.88). Retrobulbar haemorrhage was uncommon and occurred only once, in a patient who had a retrobulbar block.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is little to choose between peribulbar and retrobulbar block in terms of anaesthesia and akinesia during surgery measuring acceptability to patients, need for additional injections and development of severe complications. Severe local or systemic complications were rare for both types of block.
Topics: Anesthesia, Local; Cataract Extraction; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26133124
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004083.pub3