4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

The Cataract National Dataset Electronic Multicentre Audit of 55 567 operations: anaesthetic techniques and complications

期刊

EYE
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 50-55

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.eye.6703031

关键词

cataract surgery; local anaesthesia; complications; electronic patient records; Cataract National Dataset

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The primary aim of this study was to detail anaesthetic techniques and complications for cataract surgery in the UK. Methods The Cataract National Dataset was extracted from 12 National Health Service Trusts that used the same electronic patient record system between November 2001 and July 2006 on a total of 55 567 cataract operations. Results Anaesthesia was administered by an ophthalmologist in 56.7% of the cases, a career anaesthetist in 42.1% of the cases, a clinical assistant anaesthetist in 0.3% of the cases, and staff were not recorded in 0.9% of the cases. Local anaesthesia (LA) was used in 95.5%, with topical anaesthesia alone in 22.3% (range by site, 0-99.8%), topical and intracameral in 4.7% (range, 0-24.1%), subtenons in 46.9% (range, 0-81.8%), peribulbar in 19.5% (range, 0-63.4%), and retrobulbar in 0.5% (range, 0-5.3%). One or more minor complications occurred in 4.3% of 38 058 local blocks administered by either sharp needle or subtenons (blunt) cannula. Minor complications were 2.3 times more common with subtenons blocks (P<0.001). Serious complications, defined as sight or life threatening occurred in 25 eyes, 0.066%, undergoing sharp needle or subtenons cannula blocks. Sharp needle techniques had a 2.5-fold increased risk of serious complications compared with subtenons cannula techniques (P = 0.026). Conclusion Subtenons anaesthesia was the most widely used anaesthetic technique for cataract surgery but wide variation existed by site. There was a low rate of reported LA complications. There was a statistically significant increased risk of serious complications with sharp needle anaesthesia compared with subtenons technique.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据