COMPARISON OF MEAN POSTOPERATIVE PAIN BETWEEN TOPICAL ANESTHESIA AND RETROBULBAR ANESTHESIA IN PATIENTS WITH PHACOEMULSIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR CATARACT SURGERY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55519/JAMC-02-12234Keywords:
Cataract, Phacoemulsification, Retrobulbar Anesthesia, Topical AnesthesiaAbstract
Background: The purpose of the study was to compare the mean post-operative pain in patients undergoing phacoemulsification for cataract with topical anesthesia vs. retrobulbar anesthesia. Methods: An interventional study was carried out in a tertiary care hospital of Islamabad. The study duration was from 30th March 2021 to 29th September 2021. The adopted sampling technique was consecutive sampling. The sample size was 180 subjects divided into two groups of 90 each. Through the use of a lottery, patients were split into two groups of 90 each. Patients in group A received topical anesthesia, whereas individuals in group B received retrobulbar anesthesia. An Ophthalmologist performed a retrobulbar block on Group B using a 23-gauge needle and 5 mL of 2% Lidocaine. The researcher observes the patients for post-operative pain. SPSS 25 version was used for statistical analysis. Results: The research study included 180 patients in total. Participants ranged in age from 40 to 70, with a mean age of 56.26±6.31 years, and 46% male vs. 54 % females. The study found the post-operative pain at 45 minutes after topical anesthesia was 0.60±0.67 and after retrobulbar anesthesia was 1.40±0.90 in patients undergoing phacoemulsification for cataract surgery. The results showed that Group A feel less pain compare to Group B and the significance value was (p .0001). Conclusion: The study concluded that topical anesthesia usually a best alternative for retrobulbar anesthesia. The patient feel less pain with topical compared to retrobulbar anesthesia.References
Wright P. Managing low vision in an aging population. [Internet]. 2023 Jan 5;15(1) [cited 2023 Aug];15. Available from: https://www.optometrytimes.com/view/managing-low-vision-in-an-aging-population.
Ganekal S, Nagarajappa A. Comparison of morphological and functional endothelial cell changes after cataract surgery: phacoemulsification versus manual small-incision cataract surgery. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2014;21(1):56–60.
Nayak BK, Shukla RO. Effect on corneal endothelial cell loss during phacoemulsification: Fortified
balanced salt solution versus Ringer lactate. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012;38:1552–8.
Ganekal S, Nagarajappa A. Comparison of morphological and functional endothelial cell changes after cataract surgery: phacoemulsification versus manual small-incision cataract surgery. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2014;21(1):56–60.
Steinmetz JD, Bourne RR, Briant PS, Flaxman SR, Taylor HR, Jonas JB, et al. Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob Health 2021;9(2):e144–60.
Liu YC, Wilkins M, Kim T, Malyugin B, Mehta JS. Cataracts. Lancet 2017;390(10094):600–12.
Sahu PK, Das GK, Agrawal S, Kumar S. Comparative evaluation of corneal endothelium in patients with diabetes undergoing phacoemulsification. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2017;24(2):74–80.
Ang RE, Quinto MM, Cruz EM, Rivera MC, Martinez GH. Comparison of clinical outcomes between femtosecond laser-assisted versus conventional phacoemulsification. Eye Vis (Lond) 2018;5(1):1–3.
Amin A, Ayub T, Samuel S. Rate of posterior capsular rent as a complication of resident performed cataract extraction procedures. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2015;27(2):304–6.
Hosoda Y, Kuriyama S, Jingami Y, Hattori H, Hayashi H, Matsumoto M. A comparison of patient pain and visual outcome using topical anesthesia versus regional anesthesia during cataract surgery. Clin Ophthalmol 2016;10:1139–44.
Ángel IM, Beatriz A, Arath O, Arnulfo N, Omar IM. Topical anesthesia versus topical anesthesia plus sedation in cataract surgery. Rev Mex Oftalmol (Eng) 2018;92(2):56–61.
Ángel IM, Beatriz A, Arath O, Arnulfo N, Omar IM. Topical anesthesia versus topical anesthesia plus sedation in cataract surgery. Rev Mex Oftalmol (Eng) 2018;92(2):56–61.
Mete A, Saygılı O, Kimyon S, Pamukcu C, Çeri S, Güngör K, et al. Comparison of pain experience during 23-G vitreoretinal surgery under topical and retrobulbar anesthesia. Int Ophthalmol 2017;37(2):349–56.
Teh SS, Abdul Ghani NA, Subrayan V, Ratanam M, Peyman MR. The ideal surgical anaesthesia: a comparison of pain experience in subjects undergoing cataract surgery under topical versus subtenon anaesthesia. Ann Clin Lab Res 2017;5(3):181.
Parkar T, Gogate P, Deshpande M, Adenwala A, Maske A, Verappa K. Comparison of Sub-Tenon anaesthesia with peribulbar anaesthesia for manual small incision cataract surgery. Indian J Ophthalmol 2005;53(4):255–9.
Haddadi S, Marzban S, Fazeli B, Heidarzadeh A, Parvizi A, Naderinabi B, et al. Comparing the effect of topical anesthesia and retrobulbar block with intravenous sedation on hemodynamic changes and satisfaction in patients undergoing cataract surgery. Anesth Pain Med 2015;5(2):e24780.
Jacobi PC, Dietlein TS, Jacobi FK. A Comparative Study of Topical vs Retrobulbar Anesthesia in Complicated Cataract Surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118(8):1037–43.
Fazel MR, Forghani Z, Aghadoost D, Fakharian E. Retrobulbar versus topical anesthesia for phacoemulsification. Pak J Biol Sci 2008;11:2314–19.
Johnson RW. Anatomy for ophthalmic anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 1995;75:80–7.
Fukaseku H, Marron JA. Pinpoint anesthesia: A new approach to local ocular anesthesia. J Cataract Refract Surg 1994;20(4):468–71.
Vakharia D, Gokhale SK. A Comparative Study of Topical Versus Peribulbar Anaesthesia in Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery and Implantation of Intraocular Lens. J Clin Res Ophthalmol 2015;2(3):45–8.
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ahad Sharif, Ayyaz Hussain Awan, Sufian Ali Khan, Mutahir Shah, saif Ullah, Adila Anwar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad is an OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL which means that all content is FREELY available without charge to all users whether registered with the journal or not. The work published by J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad is licensed and distributed under the creative commons License CC BY ND Attribution-NoDerivs. Material printed in this journal is OPEN to access, and are FREE for use in academic and research work with proper citation. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad accepts only original material for publication with the understanding that except for abstracts, no part of the data has been published or will be submitted for publication elsewhere before appearing in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. The Editorial Board of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad makes every effort to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of material printed in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. However, conclusions and statements expressed are views of the authors and do not reflect the opinion/policy of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad or the Editorial Board.
USERS are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
AUTHORS retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means including twitter, scholarly collaboration networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.eu, and social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Scholar and any other professional or academic networking site.
