A randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of peribulbar versus parabulbar (subtenon) anesthesia in primary vitreoretinal surgery
Aim: To compare the efficacy of peribulbar versus parabulbar anesthesia in primary vitreoretinal surgery.
Materials and methods: 142 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to either peribulbar (n=73) or parabulbar (n=69) anesthesia. The efficacy was graded 0- 5 according to anesthesia or akinesia and the need for local supplementation.
Results: A larger volume ofanesthetic mixture (P< 0.001) and a longer interval between the administration of anesthesia and the start of surgery were required in peribulbar than parabulbar block (P=0.008). No differences were observed in their efficacy. The need for intraoperative supplementation was higher in eyes that required vitrectomy and scleral buckling or encircling than vitrectomy alone in peribulbar than parabulbar anesthesia (P=0.01).
Conclusion: Results suggest that parabulbar anesthesia is an effective alternative to peribulbar anesthesia, particularly for those eyes that undergo combined vitrectomy and buckling or encircling.
How to Cite
The Journal has a fully Open Access policy and publishes all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. For any use other than that permitted by this license, written permission must be obtained from the Journal.