ABSTRACT
AIM: To investigate patients' sensory phenomena, especially instrument visualisation, and their emotional reactions during pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) under monitored anaesthesia care (MAC). METHODS: One hundred adults who underwent PPV under MAC plus peribulbar block were prospectively recruited on the day after surgery to complete a questionnaire about sensory phenomena and comfort. Anaesthetics used during surgery were correlated with visual phenomena and patient comfort. Surgeons were asked to predict patient intraoperative comfort and ability to hear. RESULTS: Of the 27% of patients who reported visual phenomena, lights (74%), colours (37%) and moving instruments (17%) were common. Instrument visualisation was not associated with any preoperative or intraoperative variables. Visual phenomena were neutrally received by 98% of patients. Neither the use of the intravenous medications during the peribulbar injection and surgery nor the type of local anaesthesia correlated with perceived level of pain. Sixty-six per cent of patients remembered hearing surgeons talk, and 96% of patients reacted neutrally to voices. Patient reports of intraoperative pain were similar to the surgeon's prediction, and mean discomfort during surgery was mild. CONCLUSIONS: The reported prevalence of intraoperative visual phenomena is low when elicited at the first postoperative visit. Surgeons can reliably predict patients' comfort, and most patients react neutrally to visual and hearing phenomena during PPV under MAC with peribulbar block. The combination of medications used may be responsible for the neutral reception of sensory phenomena.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Local/methods , Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage , Monitoring, Intraoperative/methods , Nerve Block/methods , Visual Perception/physiology , Vitrectomy/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To analyze intraocular pressure (IOP) response after 20-mg decanted intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide followed by early prophylactic IOP-lowering therapy. METHODS: Overall, IOP results of 120 high-dose decanted intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injections from 58 nonglaucomatous patients with macular edema, with antiglaucoma therapy prescribed from Week 1 regardless of baseline IOP were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: In cases of consistent compliance with IOP-lowering drugs (79.2%), IOP increased by 2 mmHg at 4 months (P = 0.300) and returned to baseline at 6 months. In cases of noncompliance (20.8%), IOP increased by 7 mmHg at 1 month (P < 0.001) and returned to baseline after starting treatment. Multivariate regression analysis showed that nonvitrectomized eyes and noncompliance with IOP-lowering drugs were independent predictors of increase in IOP greater than 21 mmHg (P = 0.0098 and P = 0.0019, respectively). Nonvitrectomized eyes had a 46% greater chance to experience increase in IOP compared with vitrectomized ones. Poor compliance with IOP-lowering drugs lead to a 45% greater likelihood of experiencing increase in IOP compared with compliant patients. Multiple injections were not associated with the increased risk for increase in IOP greater than 21 mmHg (P = 0.273). Of 120 cases, 2 eyes (1.7%) developed uncontrolled IOP and required glaucoma surgery by 4 months, with good final IOP outcome. CONCLUSION: Twenty milligram decanted intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide can be safely used to treat macular edema in nonglaucomatous patients; IOP elevation can be adequately controlled with prophylactic antiglaucoma drugs. Noncompliance with prophylactic therapy creates an early spike in IOP, and vitreous status can significantly impact increase in IOP. Compliance with IOP-lowering drugs should be stressed to patients receiving high-dose intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide especially in cases of nonvitrectomized eyes.
