Volume 4, Issue 4 (10-2019)
CJHR 2019, 4(4): 90-93 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
medghalchi A, Akbari M, Soltani Moghadam R, Alizadeh Y. Predictors of Patient Cooperation during Phacoemulsification Surgery under Topical Anesthesia. CJHR 2019; 4 (4) :90-93
URL: http://cjhr.gums.ac.ir/article-1-129-en.html
URL: http://cjhr.gums.ac.ir/article-1-129-en.html
1- Eye Research Center, Department of Eye, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Science, Rasht, Iran
2- Eye Research Center, Department of Eye, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Science, Rasht, Iran , mitra.akbari20@gmail.com
3- Eye Research Center, Department of Eye, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Science, Rasht, Iran
2- Eye Research Center, Department of Eye, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Science, Rasht, Iran , mitra.akbari20@gmail.com
3- Eye Research Center, Department of Eye, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Science, Rasht, Iran
Abstract: (2428 Views)
Background: Topical anesthesia (TA) may accompany with more discomfort for some patients during cataract surgery. We aimed to evaluate the potential factors that can be used for predicting patient’s cooperation during phacoemulsification surgery under TA.
Methods: One hundred sixty consecutive cases that were candidate for phacoemulsification surgery enrolled in this prospective study. Patient characteristics including sex, age, place of residence (urban or rural), education level (literate and illiterate) and physical examination variables including visual acuity in logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR), reaction to eye drop, and cooperation during tonometry before surgery were evaluated. Patient cooperation during surgery was classified into successful (good and satisfactory) or failed (weak) cooperation. The two groups were compared in terms of baseline and clinical examination variables.
Results: In this study, 103(64.4%) cases showed a good or satisfactory cooperation, and others had a weak cooperation. There was no association between patient cooperation during surgery and sex
(P-value = 0.2), age (P-value = 0.7), place of residence (P-value = 0.3) and education level
(P-value = 0.3). The successful group showed a higher rate of non-reaction to eye drop
(P-value = 0.0001), good cooperation during tonometry (P-value = 0.0001), non-reaction to press on lacrimal sac (P-value = 0.0001), and lower visual acuity (P-value = 0.045). In the multivariate logistic regression model, non-reaction to eye drop (OR = 66.4), good and satisfactory cooperation during tonometry (OR = 21.2, OR = 7.2, respectively) compared to weak cooperation, lower LogMAR of visual acuity (OR = 7) were significantly associated with the success of TA.
Conclusion: This study showed that some ocular examination tests before surgery including visual acuity, reaction to eye drop, cooperation during tonometry and reaction to press on the lacrimal sac can predict patient cooperation during phacoemulsification surgery under TA.
Methods: One hundred sixty consecutive cases that were candidate for phacoemulsification surgery enrolled in this prospective study. Patient characteristics including sex, age, place of residence (urban or rural), education level (literate and illiterate) and physical examination variables including visual acuity in logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR), reaction to eye drop, and cooperation during tonometry before surgery were evaluated. Patient cooperation during surgery was classified into successful (good and satisfactory) or failed (weak) cooperation. The two groups were compared in terms of baseline and clinical examination variables.
Results: In this study, 103(64.4%) cases showed a good or satisfactory cooperation, and others had a weak cooperation. There was no association between patient cooperation during surgery and sex
(P-value = 0.2), age (P-value = 0.7), place of residence (P-value = 0.3) and education level
(P-value = 0.3). The successful group showed a higher rate of non-reaction to eye drop
(P-value = 0.0001), good cooperation during tonometry (P-value = 0.0001), non-reaction to press on lacrimal sac (P-value = 0.0001), and lower visual acuity (P-value = 0.045). In the multivariate logistic regression model, non-reaction to eye drop (OR = 66.4), good and satisfactory cooperation during tonometry (OR = 21.2, OR = 7.2, respectively) compared to weak cooperation, lower LogMAR of visual acuity (OR = 7) were significantly associated with the success of TA.
Conclusion: This study showed that some ocular examination tests before surgery including visual acuity, reaction to eye drop, cooperation during tonometry and reaction to press on the lacrimal sac can predict patient cooperation during phacoemulsification surgery under TA.
Article Type: Original Contributions |
Subject:
Health Management
Received: 2019/07/17 | Accepted: 2019/09/30 | Published: 2019/10/1
Received: 2019/07/17 | Accepted: 2019/09/30 | Published: 2019/10/1
References
1. Khairallah M, Kahloun R, Bourne R, Limburg H, Flaxman SR, Jonas JB, et al. Number of people blind or visually impaired by cataract worldwide and in world regions, 1990 to 2010. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56(11):6762-6769. doi: 10.1167/iovs.15-17201. [DOI:10.1167/iovs.15-17201]
2. Kauh CY, Blachley TS, Lichter PR, Lee PP, Stein JD. Geographic variation in the rate and timing of cataract surgery among US communities. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(3):267-276. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.5322. [DOI:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.5322]
3. Park SJ, Lee JH, Kang SW, Hyon JY, Park KH. Cataract and cataract surgery: nationwide prevalence and clinical determinants. J Korean Med Sci. 2016;31(6):963-971. doi:10.3346/jkms.2016.31.6.963. [DOI:10.3346/jkms.2016.31.6.963]
4. Alboim C, Kliemann RB, Soares LE, Ferreira MM, Polanczyk CA, Biolo A. The impact of preoperative evaluation on perioperative events in patients undergoing cataract surgery: a cohort study. Eye (Lond). 2016;30(12):1614-1622. doi: 10.1038/eye.2016.203. [DOI:10.1038/eye.2016.203]
5. Zhao LQ, Zhu H, Zhao PQ, Wu QR, Hu YQ. Topical anesthesia versus regional anesthesia for cataract surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(4):659-667. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.09.056. [DOI:10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.09.056]
6. Nouvellon E, Cuvillon P, Ripart J, Viel EJ. Anaesthesia for cataract surgery. Drugs Aging. 2010;27(1):21-38. doi: 10.2165/11318590-000000000-00000. [DOI:10.2165/11318590-000000000-00000]
7. Kumar C, Dowd T. Ophthalmic regional anaesthesia. Current Opinion in Anesthesiology. 2008;21(5):632-637. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0b013e32830abc09. [DOI:10.1097/ACO.0b013e32830abc09]
8. Fraser SG, Siriwadena D, Jamieson H, Girault J, Bryan SJ. Indicators of patient suitability for topical anesthesia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997;23(5):781-783. DOI: 10.1016/S0886-3350(97)80290-8. [DOI:10.1016/S0886-3350(97)80290-8]
9. Kang YK, Kim MJ, Kim HK, Chun BY. Clinical Analysis of Ocular Parameters Contributing to Intraoperative Pain during Standard Phacoemulsification. J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:9463871. doi: 10.1155/2017/9463871. [DOI:10.1155/2017/9463871]
10. Patel BC, Burns TA, Crandall A, Shomaker ST, Pace NL, van Eerd A, et al. Comparison of topical and retrobulbar anesthesia for cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 1996;103(8):1196-1203. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(96)30522-8. [DOI:10.1016/S0161-6420(96)30522-8]
11. Omulecki W, Laudańska-Olszewska I, Synder A. Factors affecting patient cooperation and level of pain perception during phacoemulsification in topical and intracameral anesthesia. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009;19(6):977-983. doi: 10.1177/112067210901900613. [DOI:10.1177/112067210901900613]
12. Figueira EC, Sharma NS, Ooi JL, Masselos K, Lee KJ, Rosenberg ML, et al. The Lanindar test: a method of evaluating patient suitability for cataract surgery using assisted topical anaesthesia. Eye (Lond). 2009;23(2):284-289. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6703080. [DOI:10.1038/sj.eye.6703080]
13. Akkaya S, Özkurt YB, Aksoy S, Kökçen HK. Differences in pain experience and cooperation between consecutive surgeries in patients undergoing phacoemulsification. Int Ophthalmol. 2017;37(3):545-552. doi: 10.1007/s10792-016-0295-3. [DOI:10.1007/s10792-016-0295-3]
14. Dogan R, Karalezli A, Sahin D, Gumus F. Comparison of sedative drugs under peribulbar or topical anesthesia during phacoemulsification. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2012;43(2):121-127. doi: 10.3928/15428877-20120102-01. [DOI:10.3928/15428877-20120102-01]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Articles Copyright © The Author(s).
Owned by Guilan University of Medical Sciences.
Contact Information
cjhr Office, Guilan University of Medical Sciences
P.O.Box 93345-41938, Rasht, Iran
Journal Tel: +9813 33335820
Publisher Tel: +9821 453 55 000
Email: cjhr.gums@gmail.com
