Bainbridge J W, Smith J M, Reddy G, Kirwan J F
Royal Eye Unit, Kingston Hospital, UK.
Eye (Lond). 1998;12 ( Pt 4):637-40. doi: 10.1038/eye.1998.160.
To investigate the value of eye padding following uncomplicated phacoemulsification under peribulbar anaesthesia.
A prospective randomised controlled study was conducted to compare the effect of a conventional eye pad and shield with that of a clear eye shield applied without a pad in 83 patients undergoing routine phacoemulsification under peribulbar anaesthesia without lid block. The primary outcome measures were corneal fluorescein staining, discomfort, diplopia and mobility.
Moderate or severe corneal fluorescein staining on the first post-operative day was significantly more common in the pad and shield group (39%) than in the clear shield group (19%) (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in post-operative pain as measured either by visual analogue scale or by categorical pain scale. Forty per cent of the clear shield group reported transient post-operative diplopia during the immediate post-operative period compared with 7% of the pad and shield group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in reported mobility between the two groups.
Following phacoemulsification under peribulbar anaesthesia, the use of a gauze eye pad is associated with greater corneal fluorescein staining than a clear plastic shield without pad and offers no reduction in discomfort. A clear shield protects the globe against direct trauma, is associated with reduced moderate to severe corneal staining and facilitates vision in the early post-operative period. Transient diplopia reported by some patients given a clear shield is not disabling and would not be expected to occur in patients with one seeing eye. The use of a clear shield alone is a safe alternative to eye padding and offers important advantages in patients with one seeing eye.
