RESUMO

Abstract Objective: To compare the use of 2 different local anesthetic solution (LAS) volumes of 1.5 mL and 3 mL in retrobulbar block in patients undergoing cataract surgery in terms of anesthesia, akinesia, and pain levels. Methods: 80 patients between 18-90 years old, ASA I-II-III, were included in the study. For retrobulbar anesthesia, 1.5 mL LAS was applied to one group (Group LV), and 3 mL LAS to the other group (Group HV). The patients' ocular and eyelid motion scores were evaluated and recorded in the first, third, fifth, and tenth minutes after the block, and at 30-minute intervals for 4 hours post-operatively. One day later, the first hour of analgesic need and the number of times they took analgesic agents were asked and recorded. In addition, side effects were questioned and recorded. Results: The 39 (48.75%) patients were male and 41 (51.25%) patients were female. The criteria determined in terms of ocular motor score after the retrobulbar block (ocular motor score≤4) were met in 92.5% of patients in Group LV in all patients in Group HV, and the time to fulfill the determined criteria in Group HV was found to be significantly lower compared to Group LV (p=0.004). The movements of the eye in all direction except the inward movement recovered in Group LV in a significantly shorter time than Group HV (p=0.004). There was no significant difference in pain levels and side effects between the groups (p=0.34). Conclusions: After 1.5 mL LAS administration in retrobulbar block, adequate akinesia was not achieved in about one tenth of patients, but no significant difference was found between 1.5 mL and 3 mL LAS volumes in analgesic efficacy and side effects.

Resumo Objetivo: Comparar o uso de 2 volumes diferentes de solução anestésica local (LAS) de 1,5 mL e 3 mL no bloqueio retrobulbar em pacientes submetidos à cirurgia de catarata em termos de anestesia, acinesia e níveis de dor. Métodos: 80 pacientes entre 18 e 90 anos, ASA I-II-III, foram incluídos no estudo. Para anestesia retrobulbar, 1,5 mL de LAS foi aplicado em um grupo (Grupo LV) e 3 mL de LAS no outro grupo (Grupo HV). Os escores de movimento ocular e palpebral dos pacientes foram avaliados e registrados no primeiro, terceiro, quinto e décimo minutos após o bloqueio e em intervalos de 30 minutos por 4 horas no pós-operatório. Um dia depois, a primeira hora de necessidade de analgésico e o número de vezes que eles tomaram analgésicos foram solicitados e registrados. Além disso, os efeitos colaterais foram questionados e registrados. Resultados: 39 (48,75%) pacientes eram do sexo masculino e 41 (51,25%) do sexo feminino. Os critérios determinados em termos de escore motor ocular após o bloqueio retrobulbar (escore motor ocular≤4) foram atendidos em 92,5% dos pacientes do Grupo LV em todos os pacientes do Grupo HV, e foi encontrado o tempo para atender aos critérios determinados no Grupo HV ser significativamente menor em comparação ao grupo LV (p = 0,004). Os movimentos do olho em todas as direções, exceto o movimento interior, se recuperaram no Grupo LV em um tempo significativamente menor que o Grupo HV (p = 0,004). Não houve diferença significativa nos níveis de dor e efeitos colaterais entre os grupos (p = 0,34). Conclusões: Após administração de 1,5 mL de LAS no bloqueio retrobulbar, não foi alcançada acinesia adequada em cerca de um décimo dos pacientes, mas não foi encontrada diferença significativa entre os volumes de 1,5 mL e 3 mL de LAS na eficácia analgésica e efeitos colaterais.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Abstract Background and objectives: Peribulbar anesthesia has emerged as a safer option compared with intraconal retrobulbar block. Still, peribulbar anesthesia may not be considered without risk. Numerous complications have been described when performing this technique. This report aims to describe a rare case of amaurosis and contralateral paralysis while attempting to perform a peribulbar anesthesia. Case report: Male patient, 75-year old, physical status ASA II, undergoing cataract surgery by phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation. Sedated with fentanyl and midazolam and subjected to peribulbar anesthesia. There were no complications during surgery. After finishing the procedure, the patient reported lack of vision in the contralateral eye. Akinesia of the muscles innervated by the cranial nerve pairs III and VI, ptosis, and medium-sized pupils unresponsive to light stimulus were observed. Four hours after anesthesia, complete recovery of vision and eyelid and eyeball movements was seen in the non-operated eye. Conclusions: During peribulbar anesthesia, structures located in the intraconal space can be accidentally hit leading to complications such as described in the above report. Following the technical guidelines and using appropriate size needles may reduce the risk of such complication, but not completely.

Resumo Justificativa e objetivos: A anestesia peribulbar surgiu como uma opção mais segura quando comparada com o bloqueio retrobulbar intraconal. Ainda assim, a anestesia peribulbar não pode ser considerada isenta de riscos. Inúmeras complicações foram descritas quando da aplicação dessa técnica. O presente relato tem como objetivo descrever um caso raro caracterizado por amaurose e paralisia contralaterais quando da tentativa de se fazer a anestesia peribulbar. Relato de caso: Paciente masculino, 75 anos, estado físico ASA II, submetido à facectomia por facoemulsificação com implante de lente intraocular. Sedado com fentanil e midazolam e submetido a APB. Não houve intercorrências durante a cirurgia. Após o término do procedimento o paciente relatou ausência de visão no olho contralateral. Foram observadas acinesia da musculatura inervada pelo III e VI pares cranianos, ptose palpebral e pupilas de tamanho médio, não responsivas ao estímulo luminoso. Após quatro horas da anestesia, houve recuperação completa da visão, da movimentação das pálpebras e do globo ocular não operado. Conclusões: Durante a APB, estruturas localizadas no espaço intraconal podem ser atingidas acidentalmente levando a complicações como a descrita no relato acima. O respeito às diretrizes técnicas e o uso de agulhas com o tamanho adequado podem reduzir o risco de tal complicação, mas não de forma completa.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Peribulbar anesthesia has emerged as a safer option compared with intraconal retrobulbar block. Still, peribulbar anesthesia may not be considered without risk. Numerous complications have been described when performing this technique. This report aims to describe a rare case of amaurosis and contralateral paralysis while attempting to perform a peribulbar anesthesia. CASE REPORT: Male patient, 75-year old, physical status ASA II, undergoing cataract surgery by phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation. Sedated with fentanyl and midazolam and subjected to peribulbar anesthesia. There were no complications during surgery. After finishing the procedure, the patient reported lack of vision in the contralateral eye. Akinesia of the muscles innervated by the cranial nerve pairs III and VI, ptosis, and medium-sized pupils unresponsive to light stimulus were observed. Four hours after anesthesia, complete recovery of vision and eyelid and eyeball movements was seen in the non-operated eye. CONCLUSIONS: During peribulbar anesthesia, structures located in the intraconal space can be accidentally hit leading to complications such as described in the above report. Following the technical guidelines and using appropriate size needles may reduce the risk of such complication, but not completely.