No abstract

BackgroundIntravitreal injection (IVI) is a very common vitreoretinal procedure, and multiple injections are often required per patient. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of various local anesthetic techniques in reducing pain during injection.MethodsA systematic review was conducted based on searches of Cochrane, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the gray literature (Google Scholar). The end search date was February 19, 2016, across all databases. We classified pain by converting visual analog scale (VAS) scores (0–100 mm) into Jensen’s classification levels: 0–4, no pain; 5–44, mild pain; 45–74, moderate pain; and 75–100, severe pain. An intervention was considered clinically significant when pain score change was >12 mm on a 100-mm scale.ResultsEight studies out of 23 met the eligibility criteria. The total number of patients was 847. Most studies (5/8 [62.5%]) were at unclear risk of bias because of unclear randomization, thus providing only moderate evidence to this review. The anesthetic techniques included eye drops with proparacaine, tetracaine or cocaine, a lidocaine pledget or gel, and subconjunctival injection of 2% lidocaine or 0.75% levobupivacaine. No study comprised all of the techniques. Pain was mild (VAS scores, 5–44 mm) regardless of anesthetic technique. A clinically significant intervention (pain score change >12 mm) was found for only one study comparing proparacaine drops, lidocaine gel, and subconjunctival lidocaine; in that study, a subconjunctival injection of 2% lidocaine provided the greatest pain reduction. A meta-analysis was not possible due to study heterogeneity.ConclusionsPatient pain during IVI under topical anesthesia is mild regardless of anesthetic technique. A subconjunctival injection of 2% lidocaine could be an option for highly sensitive patients. However, with moderate level of evidence, no single anesthetic technique could be defined as the best option for IVI.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40942-017-0076-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundPatients undergoing ophthalmic surgery are usually elderly and, due to systemic disease, may be on long-term therapy, such as antithrombotic agents. Rates of hemorrhagic complications associated with invasive procedures may be increased by the use of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents.ObjectiveTo compare the incidence of hemorrhagic complications in patients undergoing needle-based ophthalmic regional anesthesia between patients on antithrombotic therapy and those not on such therapy.MethodsA systematic review was conducted by two independent reviewers based on searches of Cochrane, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the “gray” literature (Google Scholar). The end search date was May 8, 2015, across all databases.ResultsFive studies met the eligibility criteria. In three studies, individual risk of bias was low, and in two of them, moderate. In all studies, no differences regarding mild to moderate incidence of hemorrhagic complications were found between patients using antithrombotics (aspirin, clopidogrel, and warfarin) and those not using them. Rates of severe hemorrhagic complication were very low (0.04%) in both groups, supporting the safety of needle blocks, even in patients using antithrombotics. High heterogeneity across studies prevented meta-analysis. Limitations to these results include low statistical power in three experimental studies and a large 95% confidence interval in the two retrospective cohorts.ConclusionIn this review, none of the selected studies showed significant bleeding related to needle-based ophthalmic regional anesthesia in association with the use of aspirin, clopidogrel, or vitamin K inhibitors. Since the available data is not powerful enough to provide a reliable evaluation of the true effect of antithrombotics in this setting, new studies to address these limitations are necessary.