Superior School of Health Sciences, Amazonas State University, Manaus, AM, Brazil.
Department of Ophthalmology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
PLoS One. 2020 Aug 6;15(8):e0236624. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236624. eCollection 2020.
To compare pain during pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) following topical lidocaine jelly and sub-Tenon anesthesia versus peribulbar anesthesia.
Prospective, single-center, randomized study. Patients scheduled for PPV for macular hole (MH) or epiretinal membrane (ERM) at the Retina and Vitreous Section of the Department of Ophthalmology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo were randomly assigned to one of two groups in a 1:1 allocation ratio. Patients assigned to Group ST received topical anesthesia with 2% lidocaine jelly followed by sub-Tenon anesthesia with 2-4 ml of 1% ropivacaine. Patients assigned to PB received peribulbar anesthesia with 4-6 ml of 1% ropivacaine. After PPV, patients in both groups were asked to rate the level of pain they felt during the entire procedure (including anesthesia administration and PPV) by pointing at a 0-100 Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAS). Data regarding demographics, patient characteristics and surgical features were also collected.
Fifty-four patients were enrolled in the study (26 in Group ST and 28 in Group PB). Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, and presence of comorbidities, were similar in both groups. The surgery performed was PPV alone in 10 and 14 patients in the ST and PB groups, respectively, and combined phacoemulsification and PPV in 16 and 14 patients in the ST and PB groups, respectively (p = 0.39, Pearson). Surgery duration (mean ± SD minutes) was similar in the two groups (62 ± 12 for ST and 70 ± 20 for PB, p = 0.09, t-Test). No patients needed supplemental topical or intravenous anesthesia during surgery. No sight- or life-threatening complication was observed in either group. VAS score was significantly lower in the ST compared to the PB group (median (interquartile range) was 1 (2.25-0) in the ST group compared to 11.5 (29.75-5) in the PB group, p< 0.0001, Wilcoxon).
In this study of patients who underwent PPV for MH or ERM, topical followed by sub-Tenon anesthesia was more effective in controlling pain during the whole vitrectomy procedure than peribulbar anesthesia. Compared to peribulbar anesthesia which is administered with a sharp needle, sub-Tenon anesthesia administered with a blunt cannula may be associated with a reduced risk of such adverse events as globe perforation, retrobulbar hemorrhage, and inadvertent injection of anesthesia into the optic nerve sheath.
比较局部利多卡因凝胶和球后麻醉与球周麻醉行玻璃体切除术(PPV)时的疼痛程度。
前瞻性、单中心、随机研究。在圣保罗大学里贝朗普雷图医学院眼科视网膜和玻璃体科计划行黄斑裂孔(MH)或视网膜前膜(ERM)PPV 的患者,按照 1:1 的比例随机分配到两组中的任意一组。ST 组患者接受 2%利多卡因凝胶局部麻醉,然后接受 2-4ml 1%罗哌卡因的球筋膜下麻醉。PB 组患者接受 4-6ml 1%罗哌卡因的球周麻醉。两组患者在 PPV 后,通过指向 0-100 视觉模拟疼痛量表(VAS)来评估他们在整个手术过程(包括麻醉管理和 PPV)中的疼痛程度。还收集了有关人口统计学、患者特征和手术特征的数据。
共有 54 名患者入组本研究(ST 组 26 例,PB 组 28 例)。两组患者的基线特征,包括年龄、性别和合并症,相似。ST 组和 PB 组分别有 10 例和 14 例患者仅行 PPV,分别有 16 例和 14 例患者行超声乳化联合 PPV(p = 0.39,Pearson)。两组手术时间(平均值±标准差分钟)相似(ST 组 62±12,PB 组 70±20,p = 0.09,t-检验)。两组患者均无需额外的局部或静脉麻醉。两组均未发生视力或生命威胁性并发症。ST 组的 VAS 评分明显低于 PB 组(ST 组中位数(四分位距)为 1(2.25-0),而 PB 组为 11.5(29.75-5),p<0.0001,Wilcoxon)。
在这项对 MH 或 ERM 患者行 PPV 的研究中,与球周麻醉相比,局部利多卡因凝胶联合球筋膜下麻醉在整个玻璃体切除术过程中更有效地控制疼痛。与使用锐针进行的球周麻醉相比,使用钝套管进行的球筋膜下麻醉可能与眼球穿孔、球后出血和麻醉意外注射到视神经鞘等不良事件的风险降低相关。