No abstract

SummaryThe purpose of this study was to evaluate peri-operative outcome after vitreoretinal surgery when peribulbar anaesthesia is combined with general anaesthesia. Sixty adult patients undergoing elective primary retinal detachment surgery with scleral buckling or an encircling procedure received either peribulbar anaesthesia in conjunction with general anaesthesia or general anaesthesia alone. For peribulbar anaesthesia a single percutaneous injection of 5-7 ml of local anaesthetic solution (0.75% ropivacaine with hyaluronidase 15 iu.ml )1 ) was used. The incidence of intraoperative oculocardiac reflex and surgical bleeding interfering with the surgical field, postoperative pain and analgesia requirements, and postoperative nausea and vomiting were recorded. In the block group there was a lower incidence of oculocardiac reflex and surgical bleeding intraoperatively. Patients in the block group also had better postoperative analgesia and a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with the group without a block. The use of peribulbar anaesthesia in conjunction with general anesthesia was superior to general anaesthesia alone for vitreoretinal surgery with scleral buckling.

Purpose:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic, respiratory effects, the recovery profile, surgeons, and patients satisfaction with dexmedetomidine sedation compared with those of propofol sedation in patients undergoing vitreoretinal surgery under sub-Tenon’s anesthesia.Methods:Sixty patients were enrolled in this prospective, single-blind, randomized study. The patients were divided into two groups to receive either dexmedetomidine (group D) or propofol (group P). Sedation level was titrated to a Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) of 3. Hemodynamic and respiratory effects, postoperative recovery time, analgesic effects, surgeons and patients satisfaction were assessed.Results:Both groups provided a similar significant reduction in heart rate and mean arterial pressure compared with baseline values. The respiratory rate values of the dexmedetomidine group were significantly higher than those in the propofol group. The oxygen saturation values of the dexmedetomidine group were significantly higher than those of the propofol group. The expired CO2 was similar in both groups. Postoperatively, the time to achieve an Aldrete score of 10 was similar in both groups. Dexmedetomidine patients have significantly lower visual analog scale for pain than propofol patients. The surgeon satisfaction with patients’ sedation was similar for both groups. The patients’ satisfaction was higher in the dexmedetomidine group.Conclusion:Dexmedetomidine at similar sedation levels with propofol was associated with equivalent hemodynamic effects, maintaining an adequate respiratory function, similar time of discharge from PACU, better analgesic properties, similar surgeon’s satisfaction, and higher patient’s satisfaction. Thus, dexmedetomidine may prove to be a valuable adjuvant for sedation in patients undergoing vitreoretinal surgery under sub-Tenon’s anesthesia.

For patients undergoing vitreoretinal surgery, adding 20 μg of dexmedetomidine to levobupivacaine for sub-Tenon's block anesthesia in vitreoretinal surgery extended the motor and sensory block durations and provided more effective postoperative analgesia with improvement in the sleep quality in the first postoperative night compared with levobupivacaine alone.