Efficacy of Care for Blind Painful Eyes.

PURPOSE: Pain relief for a blind painful eye often follows an escalating paradigm of interventions. This study compares the efficacy of common interventions.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of blind painful eye cases was conducted at a single tertiary institution from April 2012 to December 2016. Demographics, etiology, treatment, and pain level were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 99 blind painful eyes, 96 eyes initially received medical therapy (topical steroids, cycloplegics, and/or hypotensives), with pain relief in 39% of eyes. Minimally invasive interventions (laser cyclophotocoagulation, retrobulbar injection, or corneal electrocautery) were performed 41 times in 36 eyes, 34 of which had failed medical therapy, and led to pain relief in 75% of eyes. Evisceration or enucleation was performed in 28 eyes, and long-term pain relief was achieved in 100% of eyes. Surgery allowed discontinuation of oral analgesics in 100% of cases versus 20% for minimally invasive therapy (p = 0.005) and 14% for medical therapy (p = 0.0001). Compared with medical therapy, minimally invasive therapy was 2.5 times more likely to achieve lasting pain relief (p = 0.003) and surgical therapy 35.6 times more likely to achieve lasting pain relief (p = 0.011). High initial pain score was associated with nonsurgical treatment failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical therapy provides pain relief in a moderate number of patients with a blind painful eye. When medical therapy fails, minimally invasive therapy and surgical interventions are successively more effective in relieving ocular pain. High initial pain score is a risk factor for nonsurgical therapy failure and may merit an earlier discussion of surgical intervention.