ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Succinylcholine administration, laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation are followed by increased intraocular pressure. Various premedications have been advocated for preventing increases in intraocular pressure, especially in patients undergoing surgical repair of open globe due to penetrating eye trauma. Results of studies in this area have been controversial. METHODS: In this double-blind study, three groups of 70 patients receiving sufentanil, lidocaine and placebo 90 s prior to intubation were evaluated and compared for intraocular pressure changes following succinylcholine administration, laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. RESULTS: Mean intraocular pressure measured 2 and 3 min after succinylcholine administration in groups receiving sufentanil and lidocaine was significantly lower than in the placebo group. Mean intraocular pressure changes in the three groups were -1.84, -2.03 and +2.82 mmHg, respectively in minute 2; -4.78, -4.73 and +1.35 mmHg, respectively in minute 5. There was a significant intraocular pressure decrease in the sufentanil and lidocaine groups, compared to the placebo group. The eye surgeons' satisfaction was also significantly higher with the sufentanil and lidocaine groups. CONCLUSION: Previous studies have yielded controversial results as to the effect of sufentanil and lidocaine in preventing intraocular pressure following succinylcholine administration, laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. The present study affirms the preventive effect of these drugs on intraocular pressure increase.
Subject(s)
Anesthetics, Local/pharmacology , Intraocular Pressure/drug effects , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Lidocaine/pharmacology , Neuromuscular Depolarizing Agents/pharmacology , Succinylcholine/metabolism , Sufentanil/pharmacology , Adult , Analgesics, Opioid/pharmacology , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Morphine/pharmacologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Age related macular degeneration (ARMD) is the most frequent cause of blindness among the elderly. Obesity may be one of the risk factors of ARMD as suggested, yet not proved, by several studies. This study assesses the relation between body mass index (BMI) and the incidence of ARMD METHODS: This case-control study included 50 patients with ARMD and 80 subjects who were adjusted for age, sex, cigarette smoking, blood pressure, and diabetes. Data analysis was performed by SPSS V9.0 using Student's t and chi2 tests. RESULTS: 42% of the subjects in the case group and 35% of those in the control group were men. Mean age of subjects in the case and control groups was 69.9 years (62-77 years) and 64.08 years (56-71 years), respectively. Mean BMI measured 25.38 (range 21-29) and 30.24 (26-34) in the case and control groups, respectively (p>0.05). 12% of subjects in the case group were obese, 42% were overweight, and 14% were lean. 22.5% of subjects in the control group were obese, 45% were overweight, and 7.5% were lean (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: 43% of patients in this study were aged 70 years or older, which is similar to other studies. There was no significant difference in BMI between the case and control groups. Recent studies indicate that obesity is a probable risk factor for progression of ARMD, but there is no significant relation with the presence of ARMD. With multifactorial analysis, the authors could identify no significant relation between the presence of ARMD and the studied risk factors.
