No abstract

Acceptability of blocks Study population RR 1.01 (0.98 to 1.03) 600 (2 studies) ⊕⊕⊕ moderate 3 968 per 1000 978 per 1000 (949 to 997) Medium risk population 965 per 1000 975 per 1000 (946 to 994) *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. on a scale of 0 to 4 Sequence generation and allocation concealment was inadequate Allocation concealment and sequence generation not clear Allocation concealment and masking was not adequate in 2 of the four trials Sequence generation not clear 5 Peribulbar versus retrobulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgery (Review)

Editorial group: Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group. Publication status and date: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions), published in Issue 4, 2012.

No abstract

There is little to choose between peribulbar and retrobulbar block in terms of anaesthesia and akinesia during surgery in terms of acceptability to patients, need for additional injections and development of severe complications. Severe local or systemic complications were rare in PB and RB.