ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
Year : 2005 | Volume
: 53
| Issue : 4 | Page : 255-259 |
|
Comparison of subtenon anaesthesia with peribulbar anaesthesia for manual small incision cataract surgery
Tasneem Parkar, Parikshit Gogate, Madan Deshpande, Arif Adenwala, Amar Maske, K Verappa
H.V. Desai Eye Hospital, Pune, India
Correspondence Address:
Parikshit Gogate H. V. Desai Eye Hospital, 93 Tarawade Vasti Mohammadwadi, Hadapsar, Pune – 411 028 India
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.18907
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
[FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
|
|