No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

To evaluate and compare levels of patient discomfort and perioperative complications during phacoemulsification and implantation of a foldable intraocular lens under topical lidocaine hydrochloride and retrobulbar anesthesia in patients with cataract who also had exfoliation syndrome, uveitis, posterior synechia, phacodonesis, or previous intraocular surgery.Design: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was carried out at 2 institutions.Participants: A total of 476 eyes of 476 patients with various well-established risk factors fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In 238 eyes, phacoemulsification was performed under retrobulbar anesthesia, while the other 238 eyes received topical anesthesia.Interventions: All patients underwent temporal clear corneal phacoemulsification and implantation of a foldable intraocular lens. Patients under retrobulbar anesthesia received a single injection (3.5-5.5 mL) of a combination of 0.75% bupivacaine hydrochloride, 2% lidocaine, and hyaluronidase into the retrobulbar space. Patients in the topical anesthesia group received a minimum of 5 doses (approximately 40 µL per dose) of 2% topical lidocaine. No intracameral injection of any anesthetic was given. Main Outcome Measures:The number of complications and adverse events. The intraoperative conditions were judged by the surgeon (P.C.J. or F.K.J.), and a 10point visual analog scale was used immediately after sur-gery to assess each patient's overall severity of intraoperative pain.Results: The overall intraoperative complication rate was 1.9% for capsular tear, 3.8% for zonular tear, 1.5% for vitreous loss, and 1.0% for iris prolapse. Apart from the incidence of vitreous loss, which was significantly (P=.041) lower in the topical anesthesia group, no statistically significant differences in intraoperative and early postoperative complications were found between the groups. A supplemental posterior sub-Tenon space injection was required in 1.3% of the topical anesthesia group and in 0.8% of the retrobulbar anesthesia group. Chemosis (2.5%), subconjunctival hemorrhage (1.7%), and periorbital hematoma (0.8%) were seen only in the retrobulbar anesthesia group. The mean±SE pain scores estimated by the patients were 0.84±1.30 in the topical anesthesia group and 0.73±1.50 in the retrobulbar anesthesia group (P=.41). Patient preference for topical anesthesia (91%) appeared to be significantly (P=.01) higher than for retrobulbar anesthesia (62%). The surgeons found anesthesia-related intraoperative difficulty to be slightly lower in the retrobulbar anesthesia group (8%) than in the topical anesthesia group (14%).Conclusions: Surgery-related complications and patient discomfort were similar for the 2 methods of anesthesia. Topical anesthesia is justified as a means of improving safety without causing discomfort to the patient even in complicated cases of cataract surgery.

No abstract

Conclusion-Prognosis of primary ab externo glaucoma surgery in primary congenital glaucoma seems to be governed more by the individual course and severity of the disease than by modification of surgical techniques. (Br J Ophthalmol 1999;83:317-322)

To establish the relative safety and effectiveness of trabecular aspiration in combination with phacoemulsification and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation (asp+IOL) for decreasing intraocular pressure (IOP), and to compare the outcome of this method of treatment with that of phacoemulsification and IOL implantation alone (IOL-alone) or standard filtering glaucoma triple procedure (triple procedure). Design: Prospective, controlled study randomized with respect to assignment to trabecular aspiration, with a casecontrol design between the asp+IOL and triple procedure groups. Participants: Seventy-four eyes of 74 patients with uncontrolled pseudoexfoliation glaucoma without a history of previous intraocular or extraocular surgery and in need of cataract surgery. Forty-eight patients were randomized to those receiving adjunctive trabecular aspiration (asp+IOL group of 26 eyes) and those given no trabecular aspiration (IOL-alone group of 22 eyes). The triple procedure group consisted of 26 cases, closely matched to the asp+IOL cases in terms of age, sex, cupdisc ratio, glaucoma medication requirements, and systemic diseases. Interventions: Temporal clear corneal phacoemulsification and foldable IOL implantation was performed in all eyes. In the asp+IOL group, trabecular aspiration was performed with a suction force of 100 to 200 mm Hg under light tissue-instrument contact using a modified intraocular aspiration probe. A modified Cairns-type trabeculectomy without adjunctive antimetabolites was performed superiorly in the triple procedure eyes after IOL implantation. Main Outcome Measures: Surgical outcome was assessed in terms of IOP change, need of adjunctive glaucoma medication, visual acuity outcome, and complications. Surgical failure was defined as an outcome requiring additional surgical intervention or more than 1 medication to achieve IOP control to the target pressure. Results: Two years after surgery, success rates were 36%, 64%, and 78% in the IOL-alone, asp+IOL, and triple procedure groups, respectively (PϽ.001). Hyphema (46%) and ocular hypotony (11%) were observed in the triple procedure group only, whereas blood reflux (61%) and descemetolysis (19%) were seen exclusively in the asp+IOL group. Conclusions: In pseudoexfoliative eyes, asp+IOL is significantly more effective than cataract surgery alone in reducing postoperative IOP and the necessity for glaucoma medication. Although trabecular aspiration in the triple procedure did not achieve pressure control in all patients, especially in the low target pressure range, the risk profile appears to be more favorable in the trabecular aspiration-treated eyes than in the filtering glaucoma triple procedure group. Trabecular aspiration in the glaucoma triple procedure could serve as a possible first-line treatment for pseudoexfoliative eyes with coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

No abstract