The effectiveness of 2% lidocaine gel compared to 0.5% tetracaine eye drop as topical anesthetic agent for phacoemulsification surgery

14Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Topical anesthetics have become the primary choice in phacoemulsification procedures for cataract extraction. The most common topical anesthetic drug used is 0.5% tetracaine eye drops. Repeated administration of 0.5% tetracaine drops can cause corneal epithelial damage. Two percent lidocaine gel is latest option which has longer contact time with corneal epithelium. Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of 2% lidocaine gel with 0.5% tetracaine drops in phacoemulsification surgery. Methods: The study was a single blinded randomized clinical trial from March to July 2017 in patients underwent phacoemulsification cataract surgery. There were 72 subjects with age ≥ 40 years old who received randomization and divided into 2 groups: 2% lidocaine gel group and 0.5% tetracaine eye drop group. Topical anesthetics were applied 5 minutes before surgery. Five minutes after surgery, pain scale perceived during surgery was assessed by using a numerical rating scale. At the end of surgery, the subject filled the satisfaction questionnaire on topical anesthetic drugs administered. The ophthalmologists were also given a satisfactory questionnaire for topical anesthetic drugs selected for the procedure. Results: The median pain scale for 2% lidocaine gel group pain scale was 1; meanwhile, the median pain scale for 0.5% tetracaine eye drops was 3 (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Two percent lidocaine gel was more effective in relieving pain during phacoemulsification cataract surgery compared with 0.5% tetracaine drops.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chandra, S., Sugiarto, A., Hotasi, R., Melati, A. C., & Harmani, B. (2018). The effectiveness of 2% lidocaine gel compared to 0.5% tetracaine eye drop as topical anesthetic agent for phacoemulsification surgery. Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.5812/aapm.68383

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free