Regional anesthesia for small incision cataract surgery: Comparison of subtenon and peribulbar block

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorAdekola, O. O
dc.contributor.authorAribaba, O. T
dc.contributor.authorMusa, K
dc.contributor.authorOlatosi, J. O
dc.contributor.authorRotimi-Samuel, A
dc.contributor.authorAsiyanbi, G. K
dc.contributor.authorOnakoya, A
dc.contributor.authorAkinsola, F. B
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-01T10:03:59Z
dc.date.available2022-08-01T10:03:59Z
dc.date.issued2018-01
dc.descriptionScholarly articleen_US
dc.description.abstractBackground and Objective: The recent trend in cataract surgery is the use of regional ophthalmic nerve blocks or topical anesthesia. We determined and compared the effect of peribulbar and subtenon block on pain and patients’ satisfaction, following small incision cataract surgery (SICS). Methods: This was age‑sex‑matched comparative study involving 462 ASA I‑III patients, aged 18 years and above scheduled for SICS. They were assigned to receive either peribulbar block (Group P) or subtenon (Group ST). The pain score and patients’ satisfaction with the anesthetic experiences were recorded by a study‑masked anesthesiologist during surgery and postoperatively at 30 min and 1, 2, 4, and 24 h. Results: The median numeric rating score was significantly lower in the subtenon group than the peribulbar group: During surgery, Group ST 1 (1) versus group P 1.5 (2.25), P < 0.001. At 30 min after surgery, Group ST 0 (1) versus Group P 1 (2.5) versus P < 0.001, and at 1 h after surgery, Group ST 0 (1) versus group P 1 (2), P = 0.002. Ten patients had akinesia in the peribulbar group compared with one in the subtenon group. Chemosis was significantly higher in the subtenon group 10 (3.2%) than in the peribulbar group 0 (0%), P = 0.035. Similarly, a significant difference was not with subconjuctival hemorrhage; subtenon 14 (4.5%) versus peribulbar 2 (1.3%), P = 0.105. Conclusion: The use of subtenon block resulted in lower pain scores and higher patient’s satisfaction than peribulbar block. However, subconjuctival hemorrhage and chemosis were more common with subtenon block.en_US
dc.identifier.citationAdekola OO, Aribaba OT, Musa K, Olatosi JO, Asiyanbi GK, Rotimi-Samuel A, et al. Regional anesthesia for small incision cataract surgery: Comparison of subtenon and peribulbar block. J Clin Sci 2018;15:1-7.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1595-9587
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.unilag.edu.ng/handle/123456789/10980
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWoltlers Kluweren_US
dc.subjectComplicationsen_US
dc.subjectPainen_US
dc.subjectPeribulbar blocken_US
dc.subjectsmall incision cataract surgeryen_US
dc.subjectSubtenon blocken_US
dc.subjectResearch Subject Categories::MEDICINE::Surgery::Anaesthetics and intensive careen_US
dc.titleRegional anesthesia for small incision cataract surgery: Comparison of subtenon and peribulbar blocken_US
dc.title.alternativeThe effect of subtenon and peribulbar block on pain during cataract surgeryen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
JClinSci_2018_15_1_1_226037 (1).pdf
Size:
1.55 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Anaesthesia- Scholarly Publications