Regional anesthesia for cataract surgery: comparison of retrobulbar and peribulbar techniques. One point low volume peribulbar anaesthesia versus retrobulbar anaesthesia. A prospective clinical trial. Regional anaesthesia for cataract surgery: comparison of three techniques. A modified retrobulbar block for eye surgery. Postcataract ptosis. A randomized, double-masked comparison of peribulbar and retrobulbar anesthesia. A comparison of retrobulbar and periocular anesthesia for cataract surgery. Evaluation of anxiolysis and pain associated with combined peri- and retrobulbar eye block for cataract surgery. Axillary block by "selective" injections at the nerves involved in surgery using a peripheral nerve stimulator: a comparison with a "standard" triple-injection technique. Postoperative analgesia with intramuscular morphine at fixed rate versus epidural morphine or sufentanil and bupivacaine in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.
METHODS. The features of retrobulbar and peribulbar blocks were compared prospectively in 300 patients undergoing elective, ambulatory cataract surgery. Both techniques were clinically applicable, but to achieve total akinesia of the eye muscles, an additional injection was needed in 13% of the patients with retrobulbar block and in 35% with periocular block. RESULTS. In younger patients (less than 65 years), the number of injections and the volume of the local anesthetic needed to produce a total akinesia of the eye were significantly higher when compared with the elderly. A prospective trial was conducted on 142 patients who underwent cataract surgery, to compare the efficacy of a single point, low volume peribulbar with that of retrobulbar anaesthesia. It was found that peribulbar anaesthesia is as efficacious as retrobulbar anaesthesia without the associated complications. It also avoids the facial block used by most ophthalmologists to supplement a retrobulbar block, thus markedly reducing the post-operative patient discomfort as well as the total volume of anaesthetic used. Two methods of periocular anaesthesia (PI and PII) were compared with the traditional retrobulbar block in a prospective study of 450 patients undergoing elective cataract extraction and intraocular lens implantation. A solution of local anaesthetic containing equal amounts of 2% lignocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine was used in all the groups. Hyaluronidase (75 IU/10 ml of local anaesthetic solution) was added. Three groups of patients were studied, with 150 patients in each group. The retrobulbar injection (group R) was performed with 4 ml of the anaesthetic solution through the lower eyelid inferotemporally and a further 6 ml was injected for seventh cranial nerve block. In the first periocular technique (group PI) the local anaesthetic was injected inferotemporally (5 ml) through the lower lid and superonasally (5 ml) through the upper lid. In the second periocular technique (PII) the injections were performed inferotemporally (5 ml) and into the medial compartment (2 ml) of the orbit at the medial canthus. Satisfactory anaesthesia could be achieved with all of these methods. Additional block because of insufficient akinesia of the muscles was required in 12% (18/150) in group R, in 19% (28/150) in group PI, and in 11% (16/150) in PII. The medial compartment technique (PII) was associated with the highest percentage of total akinesia of the muscles and lowest reblock rate. All three methods produced sufficient analgesia during surgery and there were no differences in the requirements for additional analgesic drugs during surgery. It is concluded that the medial compartment technique represents a good alternative to retrobulbar block. A modified retrobulbar block (MRB) using a single superomedial injection was compared with the classical retrobulbar block (RB) and peribulbar block (PB) in a randomized, prospective, surgeon-blinded study involving 150 patients undergoing cataract surgery. No serious complication occurred in any of the patients. The MRB produced higher rates of total akinesia in the orbicularis and all the extraocular muscles, which were statistically significant for the orbicularis, superior, inferior and lateral rectus and oblique muscles when compared with RB, and for the superior rectus and oblique muscles when compared with PB. MRB required less supplemental blocks, provided good operating conditions for the surgeon, and achieved high patient acceptance. It is concluded that MRB is a useful alternative method of ocular block for cataract surgery. A randomized, double-masked study of 317 patients was conducted to determine if the incidence of postcataract ptosis is greater with retrobulbar or two-injection peribulbar injection anesthesia.
                Surgery consisted of a planned extracapsular extraction with posterior chamber lens implantation, and no superior rectus bridle suture was used. Ptosis was quantitatively documented preoperatively and postoperatively at 1, 2, 5, and 90 days by the surgeon, photographically at 90 days by a masked observer, and subjectively by the patients. Postcataract ptosis was defined as a drop in the lid margin of 2 mm or greater after correcting for any change in the fellow eye.
                The incidence of ptosis at 90 days in patients given peribulbar anesthesia was 5.8% and in patients given retrobulbar anesthesia 5.5%, and this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.90). Eighteen percent of patients in both groups reported a change in the appearance of their eyelids. There was a moderate, positive correlation among patients who reported a change in their lid position and objective measurements of ptosis. Preoperative clinical measurements of vertical lid fissure width and levator function, and the appearance of the lid crease or superior sulcus were not predictive for the development of postoperative ptosis at 90 days; the best predictor was the presence of ptosis in the immediate postoperative period.
                The incidence of postcataract ptosis is the same whether two injection peribulbar or retrobulbar anesthesia is used. Complications of retrobulbar anesthesia are rare but significant. Periocular anesthesia has been advocated as an alternative to retrobulbar injections. In a prospective, randomized, masked study of 79 consecutive cataract extractions with intraocular lens implantations, 40 patients received retrobulbar injections and 39 patients received periocular injections. In every instance, the volume of the injection was 5 mL. No significant difference in surgeon's assessment of akinesia and anesthesia was found. Supplemental anesthesia was required in eight (21%) of the patients who received retrobulbar injections and in 11 (28%) of the patients who received periocular injections. A significant increase in chemosis was found with periocular injections. There was one complication with retrobulbar anesthesia and none with periocular anesthesia. No significant difference in patient assessment of comfort was found. The efficacy of periocular anesthesia appears to be comparable to that of retrobulbar anesthesia. To evaluate five different preoperative anxiolytic regimens in cataract surgery performed under regional anesthesia; to quantify the pain associated with combined peri- and retrobulbar injection (PRBI) of local anesthetic drugs; and to describe a technique of painless eye block.
                Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study.
                Private clinic.
                376 ASA I and II patients presenting for cataract surgery.
                Patients were extensively briefed by the nursing staff on the various procedures. Of the 376 study patients, 136 preferred to have no anxiolytic drug. The remaining 240 patients were randomly allocated to one of six groups to receive either 3 mg of bromazepam, 6 mg of bromazepam, 0.5 mg of alprazolam, 1 mg of alprazolam, 5 mg of diazepam, or a placebo on a double-blind protocol. All patients received a standard combined peri- and retrobulbar eye block (PRBB) before surgery.
                Anxiety at various stages of the procedure and PRBB were measured on visual analog scale (0-10). PRBB pain was compared with pain of intravenous (i.v.) cannula placement. On admission, anxiety of the 136 patients who preferred no anxiolytic premedication was significantly less than that of the 240 patients assigned to one of the six treatment groups (p < 0.05). There was no difference between the six treatment groups in reported anxiety before surgery (p > 0.05) except for Group 1 (3 mg bromazepam), where anxiety increased before and during PRBB administration (p < 0.05). In all six treatment groups, anxiety decreased significantly 30 minutes after medication was administered (p < 0.05). For the total group, 61.18% of patients reported more or equal pain associated with the placement of the 20-gauge i.v. cannula than by the PRBB. Of the patients who received medication, 94% stated that, should they require another eye operation, they would like the same anxiolytic treatment. No patient requested general anesthesia for their next operation or to be rendered unconscious for PRBB.
                1. There was interpersonal variation in the level of preoperative anxiety. 2. In patients who were anxious, the anxiolytic drugs and placebo decreasedanxiety although the level of anxiety did not differ between the anxiolytic drugs or between placebo and the anxiolytic drugs. The only difference was in Group 1 patients (3 mg promazepam), who reported slightly increased anxiety before and during PRBB administration (p < 0.05). 3. Placement of the PRBB is less painful than the insertion of a 20 g i.v. cannula. A triple-injection technique (injections at the median, musculocutaneous, and radial nerves) for axillary block affords a high incidence of complete block (all the nerves below the elbow). However, in certain surgeries, only 1 or 2 nerves are involved in the surgical field. The aim of this prospective randomized study was to test the effectiveness of surgical anesthesia of a "selective" approach in which only the nerves involved in surgery were electrically located and injected.
                Three types of surgery were selected. Type 1 included surgery on the fifth finger, type 2 included superficial surgery (without bone involvement) on the palm or on the dorsum of the hand, and type 3 included any surgery on the first 3 fingers. For each type, 138 patients were enrolled and divided into 2 groups: group SEL in which only the nerves involved in the surgical field (1 or 2) were located and injected and group TNS in which a standard triple-nerve stimulation technique was used.
                A lower rate of surgical anesthesia (84% vs 92%; P G 0.05)was recorded in group SEL considered as a whole: this was mainly due to the significant difference recorded in type 2 surgery (75% vs 93%;P G 0.05). More patients needed intravenous administration of fentanyl for tourniquet pain (18% vs 8%; P G 0.005) and of midazolam for intraoperative anxiety (20% vs 8%; P G 0.005) in group SEL considered as a whole. In type 1, improved patient comfort at block performance(P G 0.05), a 7-min saving on total anesthetic time (P G 0.001), and a higher need for midazolam administration (P G 0.05) were recorded in group SEL. In type 2, a higher need for midazolam administration(P G 0.05) was recorded in group SEL. In type 3, no clinically significant differences between the groups were recorded.
                A standard triple-nerve stimulation technique seems to be preferable to the selective approach even when a limited number of nerves are involved in the surgical field. We assessed the efficacy and side effects of postoperative analgesia with three different pain regimens in 90 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: epidural morphine (EM) or sufentanil (ES), both combined with bupivacaine, or IM morphine (IM) at fixed intervals. Before incision, patients in the epidural groups received sufentanil or morphine in bupivacaine via a thoracic catheter, followed by a continuous infusion 1 h later. General anesthesia consisted of N2O/O2 and isoflurane for all groups. Patients in all groups received IV sufentanil as part of their anesthetic management. Patients in the IM group received IV sufentanil 1 microg/kg before incision, and patients in all groups received sufentanil 10 microg for inadequate analgesia. Postoperatively, the epidural or IM treatment was continued for > or =5 days. Postoperative analgesia at rest and during coughing and movement was significantly better in the epidural groups than in the IM group during the 5 consecutive days. There were no significant differences between the epidural groups. The incidence of most side effects was similar in all groups. We conclude that epidural analgesia provided better pain relief than IM analgesia, even if the latter was optimized by fixed-dose administration at fixed intervals and included adjustments on demand. Epidural sufentanil and morphine, both combined with bupivacaine, seemed to be equally effective with similar side effects.
                Postoperative analgesia with epidural sufentanil or morphine and bupivacaine after major abdominal surgery seemed to be better than the conventional method of IM morphine treatment, despite optimal administration, i.e., fixed doses at fixed intervals with regular adjustments. Analgesic efficacy and side effects of epidural sufentanil and morphine were similar.
There is little to choose between peribulbar and retrobulbar block in terms of anaesthesia and akinesia during surgery measuring acceptability to patients, need for additional injections and development of severe complications. Severe local or systemic complications were rare for both types of block.