Total amount: € 0,00
Online ISSN 1827-1596
Lo Martire N., Savastano S. *, Rossini L. **, Pinchera L. *, Caracciolo F., Savastano M. C. ***, Rossini P. ***, Panariti R. ****, Mondello E. ****, Epifanio A.
U.O. di Anestesia e Rianimazione P.O. di Sora ASL - Frosinone
*U.O. di Oculistica, P.O. «G. de Posis» ASL - Frosinone
**U.O. di Oculistica, P.O. di Sora ASL - Frosinone °U.O. di Anestesia, Rianimazione e Terapia Intensiva P.O. «G. de Posis» ASL - Frosinone
***Università degli Studi di Roma «La Sapienza» - Roma Facoltà di Medicina e Chirurgia
****Università degli Studi - Messina Dipartimento di Scienze Neurologiche-Anestesiologiche
Background. The safety, tolerability and efficacy of ropivacaine 1% vs lidocaine 2% for phacoemulsification using topical anesthesia during cataract surgery, are compared.
Methods. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing two agents for topical anesthesia is reported. Environment: Operative Unit of Ophthalmology, general Hospital. 1893 consecutively patients were studied (ASA 1-3, 738 males, 1155 females, age 71.8±9.7 years, range 35-90 years) undergoing routine phacoemulsification under topical 2% lidocaine (group I) and 1% ropivacaine (group II). The mains outcome measures of the study were:
— the total dose of local anesthetic for obtaining a reduction of corneal sensation measured with the Cochet-Bonnet esthesiometer (value>3);
— the pain recorded with visual analogic scale and verbal scale at: T1 = the first injection of local anesthetic; T2 = corneal incision; T3 = the end of surgery; T4 = 1h after surgery; T5 = the first postoperative day;
— any requirement for additional intraoperative injection anesthesia and systemic sedation when needed;
— surgeon assessments of operative conditions and patient cooperation;
— patients’ subjective level of comfort;
Results. Topical anesthesia using lidocaine 2% was significantly more painful than the ropivacaine 1%. The onset of anesthesia adequate for surgery was similar in all two groups. There were differences between the groups with respect to perioperative analgesia because the VAS was significantly higher in lidocaine group than in ropivacaine group. There were no statistically differences between the two groups at the follow-up. Inadequate anesthesia was seen in 8.05% (74/919 patients) cases of group I vs 0.9% (22/974 patients) of group II. Sedation was needed only in 10 patients and 6 patients of group I and II respectively. The surgeon assessment showed more patient cooperation in the ropivacaine group (83%). Satisfactory comfort (level 1) was reported by 60.4% in the lidocaine group and 86.8% in the ropivacaine group. In both groups there were cases of postoperative epithelial edema (29 patients in group I vs 36 patients in group II) although it decreased after the first postoperative day. No other significant side-effects were observed with the use of either formulations.
Conclusions. Lidocaine 2% and ropivacaine 1% were safe and effective agents in patients having phacoemulsification with IOL implantation. However, ropivacaine provides more good operative conditions than lidocaine for the surgeon and comfortable surgical circumstances for the patient.