Topical Anaesthesia Versus Peribulbar Anaesthesia in Small Incision Cataract Surgery – A Comparative Study from Hyderabad Karnataka Region

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (37) ◽  
pp. 3328-3333
Author(s):  
Sumeet Deshpande ◽  
Rashmi R. Anwekar ◽  
Rajashree Reddy
Keyword(s):  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Topical Anaesthesia ◽  
Small Incision Cataract Surgery ◽  
Mild Pain ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Small Incision ◽  
Peribulbar Anaesthesia ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Surgeon Satisfaction

BACKGROUND Anaesthesia is an integral part of any successful surgery. Advances in cataract surgery have led to changes in delivery of anaesthesia as well. Patient and surgeons’ comfort during anaesthesia and surgery is the single most important factor. In developing countries, small incision cataract is preferred sometimes over phacoemulsification in high volume centers. This study was done to compare patient and surgeon satisfaction following topical anaesthesia (TA) versus peribulbar anaesthesia (PA) for small incision cataract surgery (SICS) with intraocular lens implantation (IOL). METHODS This comparative observational study was done at M.R. Medical College, Kalaburagi over a period of 15 months from November 2018 to April 2020. 400 patients undergoing manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) after obtaining consent were included in the study, out of which 200 patients were administered TA while 200 were given PA randomly. Patients were prospectively evaluated for pain during administration, during surgery and 4-hours postoperatively through a questionnaire. RESULTS In our study TA group complained no pain whereas 85 % had mild pain and 13 % had moderate pain in PA group during administration of anaesthesia (P < 0.05). During surgery, none of the patients in both the groups experienced severe pain. 17 % patients in TA group had mild pain at 4 hours while only 4 % patients in PA group had pain (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in surgeon’s satisfaction between 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS Although the administration of PA is painful compared to TA, the patient satisfaction was more post-operatively in PA group. Topical anaesthesia has gained popularity due to minimal discomfort, speed of onset and lack of PA related complications. It is a safe and effective alternative to PA in MSICS with proper selection and education of patient. KEYWORDS Small Incision Cataract Surgery, Topical Anaesthesia, Peribulbar Anaesthesia

scholarly journals Comparative study between conventional extra capsular cataract extraction versus manual small incision cataract surgery

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gannaram Laxmiprasad ◽  
Chhaya Shori ◽  
Rakesh Shori ◽  
Ashalatha Alli
Keyword(s):  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Posterior Chamber ◽  
Small Incision Cataract Surgery ◽  
Visual Rehabilitation ◽  
Surgically Induced Astigmatism ◽  
Small Incision ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Induced Astigmatism ◽  
Surgically Induced

Background: Recent reports indicate that both manual small incision cataract surgery and extra capsular cataract excision surgery with posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation are safe and effective for treatment of cataract surgery, however, manual small incision cataract surgery gives better uncorrected vision. Objectives of the study were to compare intraoperative and postoperative complications, to compare induced astigmatism and to compare the visual rehabilitation.Methods: This is a prospective study of 100 consecutive patients assigned to undergo conventional extra capsular cataract excision surgery (50 cases) and manual small incision cataract surgery (50 cases). Study was done for a period of two years at a tertiary care referral hospital. Institutional Ethics Committee permission was taken. Also the informed consent was obtained from each patient.Results: In conventional ECCE, the most common surgically induced astigmatism was WTR in 73.4% of cases with mean of 2.79 D±1.3 on first day. 70% of cases with mean 2.1 D±1.28 and 64% of cases with mean of 1.86 D±1.14 at six weeks. ATR was common in MSICS group, 83.67% of cases with mean of 1.5 D±0.72 on first day, 86% of cases with mean of 1.03 D±0.6 at one week and 88% of cases with mean of 1.27 D±0.81 at six weeks. The induced astigmatism was less in MSICS group compared to ECCE group at first day but after six weeks there was no much significant difference found. Early visual recovery was better in MSICS groupConclusions: MSICS has definitive advantages over conventional ECCE in terms of early visual rehabilitation, minimal surgically induced astigmatism; no suture related complications and reduced surgical time.

Visual outcomes of high-volume compared with low-volume manual small-incision cataract surgery in Nepal

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (8) ◽  
pp. 1119-1125
Author(s):  
Subash Bhatta ◽  
Poorav J. Patel ◽  
Suresh Awasthi ◽  
Nayana Pant ◽  
Suresh Raj Pant
Keyword(s):  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Small Incision Cataract Surgery ◽  
Visual Outcomes ◽  
Small Incision ◽  
Low Volume

scholarly journals A Comparative Study of 5.5mm Temporal Sclerocorneal Manual Small Incision Cataract Surgery Versus 5.5mm Temporal Clear Corneal Extended-incision Phacoemulsification with Implantation of a 5.25mm Rigid pmma Intraocular lens in the Bag

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
P Value ◽  
Small Incision Cataract Surgery ◽  
Corneal Incision ◽  
Small Incision ◽  
Clear Corneal Incision ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Objective: Aim of the study is to Compare the astigmatism induced by a reduced temporal sclerocorneal tunnel incision manual small incision cataract surgery with an extended temporal clear corneal Phacoemulsification of similar width . Methods: A Prospective, randomised controlled study was carried out in 224 selected patients who were again divided into two groups - Group A (112 patients) and Group B (112 patients). Group A patients underwent temporal manual small incision cataract surgery with a 5.5 mm sclerocorneal incision and Group B underwent phacoemulsification by a 2.8 mm clear corneal temporal incision which was extended to 5.5 mm before IOL implantation. In both groups, a 5.25 mm rigid PMMA IOL was implanted in the bag. UCVA and BCVA of both group of patients was quantified and analyzed at 1 week and at 6 weeks Observation: It was seen that the mean surgically Induced astigmatism in group A (N=112) was 0.5625D , which was slightly lesser than that in Group B (N=112) which was 0.65D, although the p-value of 0.26 indicated that there was statistically no significant difference in visual outcomes between the two groups of patients. Here, a p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Conclusion: In Skilled and Safe hands, refractive outcomes following performing a 5.5mm temporal sclerocorneal frown-incision manual small incision cataract surgery and a phacoemulsification procedure by a 2.8mm temporal clear corneal incision extended to 5.5mm for implanting a 5.25mm rigid PMMA IOL , are comparable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document