In this randomized single-blinded clinical study, effects of topical anesthesia and retro bulbar block on hemodynamic changes, pain and satisfaction of patients undergoing cataract surgery were investigated. Midazolam 0.5-1 mg with Fentanyl 0.5-1 mic/kg was used to reduce pain in patients (
1,
10,
13).
There were no statistically significant differences regarding pain intensity based on VAS scale and patient satisfaction based on ISAS between the two groups. Although, when the operation under topical anesthesia lasted nearly 30 minutes, hemodynamic changes occurred (increasing SBB, DBP and decreasing HR).
Cataract surgery is the most common ophthalmic surgical procedure performed in the elderly. Regional anesthesia under monitored anesthesia care is often the preferred method for the elderly, because of their high age and underlying cardiopulmonary diseases (
1-
7).
During the operation under MAC (Monitored Anesthesia Care), patients were fully monitored by an anesthesiologist and to reduce pain anxiety and patient comfort, they were given drugs during block (
10,
14-
17). There are numerous regional anesthetic methods for cataract surgery in different studies (
6-
9,
18,
19). Some studies demonstrated the preference of regional to topical anesthesia.
In Ryu’s study, three methods of topical, retro bulbar and sub-Tenon were compared and it was found that mean arterial pressure and heart rate in the retro bulbar group were considerably higher than topical and sub-Tenon groups during and immediately after the block. On the other hand, in the sub-Tenon group, patient satisfaction was the maximum (
1). In our study, there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction and pain intensity; only when topical surgery lasted for more than nearly 30 minutes, reduced satisfaction (P = 0.92), increased pain (P = 0.267) and hemodynamic changes (P < 0.05) were resulted.
Boezaart et al. conducted a study on 98 patients who underwent cataract surgery in one eye in two topical or mixed retro bulbar and peri-bulbar combination groups. One week later, the operation of the opposite eye was performed in a different group from the previous operation (first operation using topical was performed by block method in the second surgery). Results showed that retro bulbar and peri-bulbar groups had more satisfaction and topical group had more difficult operating conditions (
7). However, in the present study, there was no significant difference for satisfaction between the two topical and retro bulbar groups; although when surgery under topical anesthesia lasted more than 30 minutes, reduced satisfaction and pain intensity were resulted (no statistical significant).
Balkan et al. conducted a study on 191 patients undergoing cataract surgery who received midazolam and fentanyl and found no significant difference in pain and need for sedative drugs, which was in line with the results of the present study (
8).
Jacobi et al. performed a study on 476 patients scheduled for cataract surgery using phaco emulsification techniques under retro bulbar anesthesia with bupivacaine 0.75%, lidocaine 2%, and hyaluronidase or topical anesthesia with lidocaine 2%. Surgical complications, intraoperative situation and pain intensity were evaluated based on VAS. Except the incidence of vitreous loss, which was lower in the topical group, there were no significant differences in other complications between the groups. Pain score was not significantly different between the two groups. Patients had more tendency to use topical than retro bulbar anesthesia (P = 0.01). For the surgeons, the operation was more difficult in the topical than retro bulbar groups (
6). In this study, there was no statistically significant difference for pain, satisfaction and complications between the groups.
However, Nwosu et al. investigated two retro bulbar and sub conjunctival methods in 90 patients undergoing cataract surgery. The patients were evaluated for pain, eye immobilization and postoperative ptosis. Both of these techniques were safe and effective for cataract surgery; however, the pain experienced by patients in retro bulbar group was slightly more (
2). In the current study, there was no statistically significant difference in pain between the two groups.
Sauder compared two topical and peri-bulbar techniques in cataract surgery and reported no significant difference in pain, surgical complications and postoperative visual outcomes between these two groups (
20). Similarly, in this study, there was no difference between topical and retro bulbar groups regarding pain intensity.
Gombos et al. compared topical and retro bulbar block in cataract surgery on 115 patients and reported that retro bulbar group experienced less pain and discomfort and SBP was significantly lower (
21), but in our study there was no difference between topical and retro bulbar groups for pain intensity and satisfaction. Only when topical operation lasted for more than nearly 30 minutes, reduced satisfaction (P = 0.92), increased pain (P = 0.267) and hemodynamic changes (P < 0.05) were resulted.
In a 50-year study on 19250 patients undergoing cataract surgery in 90 centers, Katz et al. studied surgeries using topical, block and sedating drugs and investigated patients regarding intraoperative pain, satisfaction with pain control and postoperative complications (nausea, vomiting and dizziness). Intraoperative pain and postoperative complications were lower in the topical block group (
3). Indeed, in the present study, no differences existed regarding pain between these groups.
In this investigation, most patients aged between 71 and 80 years with low education or even illiteracy and ASA class III. Comparing hemodynamic changes between the two retro bulbar and topical groups demonstrated that systolic and diastolic blood pressure evidently increased and heart rate decreased 20 and 30 minutes after the operation in topical group. Moreover, 45 minutes after the block, VAS score increased in the topical group; at the same time, satisfaction rate of patients decreased in this group (statistical non-significant).
Arterial oxygen saturation was not greatly different between the two groups. In sum, there was no significant difference for pain intensity and satisfaction between the two groups; only when the operation lasted for more than nearly 30 minutes, satisfaction was decreased and pain and hemodynamic changes increased (statistical non-significant). Intraoperative and postoperative complications were not observed in recovery room and the ward. Hemodynamic changes after nearly 30 minutes may be due to decreasing the efficacy of topical drops and Occulo Cardiac Reflex (decreased HR). Although in retro bulbar block, the eye becomes immobilized providing better surgical condition and patient satisfaction than topical anesthesia, but when we studied it, there was no significant difference. Therefore, both methods, topical and retro bulbar block seem to have similar impression in cataract surgery regarding analgesia and patient satisfaction. Nevertheless, in non-complicated cataract surgeries with short duration, topical anesthesia may be the preferable method, because of non-invasiveness, appropriate analgesia, patient satisfaction and hemodynamic stability.