Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2005
Comparison of subtenon anaesthesia with peribulbar anaesthesia for manual small incision cataract surgery.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Parkar Tasneem, Gogate Parikshit, Deshpande Madan, Adenwala Arif, Maske Amar, Verappa K
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of subtenon anaesthesia with peribulbar anaesthesia in manual small incision cataract surgery using a randomised control clinical trial.
METHOD: One hundred and sixty-eight patients were randomised to subtenon and peribulbar groups with preset criteria after informed consent. All surgeries were performed by four surgeons. Pain during administration of anaesthesia, during surgery and 4 h after surgery was graded on a visual analogue pain scale and compared for both the techniques. Sub-conjuntival haemorrhage, chemosis, akinesia after administration of anaesthesia and positive pressure during surgery were also compared. Patients were followed up for 6 weeks postoperatively.
RESULTS: About 146/168 (86.9%) patients completed the six-week follow-up. Thirty-one out of 88 (35.2%) patients of peribulbar group and 62/80(77.5%) of subtenon group experienced no pain during administration of anaesthesia. There was no significant difference in pain during and 4 h after surgery. Subtenon group had slightly more sub-conjunctival haemorrhage. About 57 (64.8%) patients of the peribulbar group had absolute akinesia during surgery as compared to none (0%) in sub-tenon group. There was no difference in intraoperative and postoperative complications and final visual acuity.
CONCLUSION: Sub-tenon anaesthesia is safe and as effective as peribulbar anaesthesia and is more comfortable to the patient at the time of administration.
METHOD: One hundred and sixty-eight patients were randomised to subtenon and peribulbar groups with preset criteria after informed consent. All surgeries were performed by four surgeons. Pain during administration of anaesthesia, during surgery and 4 h after surgery was graded on a visual analogue pain scale and compared for both the techniques. Sub-conjuntival haemorrhage, chemosis, akinesia after administration of anaesthesia and positive pressure during surgery were also compared. Patients were followed up for 6 weeks postoperatively.
RESULTS: About 146/168 (86.9%) patients completed the six-week follow-up. Thirty-one out of 88 (35.2%) patients of peribulbar group and 62/80(77.5%) of subtenon group experienced no pain during administration of anaesthesia. There was no significant difference in pain during and 4 h after surgery. Subtenon group had slightly more sub-conjunctival haemorrhage. About 57 (64.8%) patients of the peribulbar group had absolute akinesia during surgery as compared to none (0%) in sub-tenon group. There was no difference in intraoperative and postoperative complications and final visual acuity.
CONCLUSION: Sub-tenon anaesthesia is safe and as effective as peribulbar anaesthesia and is more comfortable to the patient at the time of administration.