4.6 Article

Two-quadrant high-volume sub-Tenon's anaesthesia for vitrectomy: a randomised controlled trial

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 96, Issue 2, Pages 189-192

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2010.198374

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Total volume using a standard single inferonasal injection for sub-Tenon's anaesthesia is limited by an increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) and commonly requires the operating surgeon to top-up the block intraoperatively. This study compares the efficacy and safety of a two-quadrant technique that allows the use of a higher volume of local anaesthetic. Methods 54 patients undergoing vitrectomy were randomised into two groups. The control group (n = 27) received a standard 5 ml single inferonasal sub-Tenon injection of a 50: 50 mixture of 2% lidocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine with 150 IU hyaluronidase. The study group (n = 27) received a 5 ml inferonasal and 5 ml superotemporal injection of the same mixture (10 ml total). The primary outcome measure was the number of intraoperative top-ups required. Secondary outcome measures were intraoperative and postoperative pain scores, IOP, block onset time, ocular akinesia, eyelid akinesia and chemosis. Results 24 patients required a top-up in the control group. No patients required a top-up in the study group (p<0.001). IOP measurements were similar in both groups. Block onset was shorter, eyelid akinesia was improved and pain scores were also reduced in the study group intraoperatively and at 0-2 h, 4-6 h, 10-14 h and 20-24 h postoperatively. Conclusions Two-quadrant sub-Tenon's anaesthesia using 10 ml of a 50: 50 mixture of 2% lidocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine with 150 IU hyaluronidase seems to be more effective than a single-quadrant technique at reducing intraoperative and postoperative pain during vitrectomy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available