Topical anesthesia versus topical and subconjunctival anesthesia combined in diabetic retinopathy photocoagulation.

PURPOSE: comparison between two anesthetic techniques on the ability to reduce pain during panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) treatment. METHODS: Observational retrospective single center study. Medical charts of patients who underwent PRP for proliferative diabetic retinopathy were revised. Patients were included if they had the first eye treated with oxybuprocaine hydrochloride drops, and in case of severe pain, the fellow eye received topical anesthesia in combination with 2% subconjunctival lidocaine. The groups were compared for pain perception using an analog visual scale (VAS), number of laser spots, number of interruptions, and laser session duration. RESULTS: Forty-two eyes of 21 patients (mean age: 58.3 ± 7.6 years) were analyzed. The mean number of laser spots was significantly higher under combined anesthesia (+84.2 ± 155.9 spots, p = 0.01), with a reduced time for laser execution (-2.5 ± 3.12, p = 0.0008). The use of combined anesthesia significantly decreased the number of interruptions (-40.8%, p < 0.0001) into a single session. On the pain grading scale, the pain perception was significantly lower in the combined anesthesia group (p < 0.0001). In eyes receiving topical anesthesia the treatment was stopped for pain in 5 eyes (23.8%), while 5 eyes under combined anesthesia presented subconjunctival hemorrhage (23.8%). CONCLUSION: Using combined anesthesia in patients subjected to PRP appeared to reduce pain perception limiting the treatment duration and the interruptions for pain without significant complications. Further studies on a larger scale would be desirable to replicate such findings and standardize the analgesic procedures in ophthalmology.

FIL-SSF Carlevale intraocular lens for sutureless scleral fixation: 7 recommendations from a serie of 72 cases. MICA study (Multicentric Study of the Carlevale IOL).

PURPOSE: Lacking a standard technique, the surgical management of aphakia without capsular support remains to be optimized. The goal of this study is to analyze results for the Carlevale FIL-SSF intraocular lens and propose surgical recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The P1.5 Collective performed a retrospective analysis, with a minimum follow-up of 6 months, of the records of 72 implantations of the Carlevale FIL-SSF intraocular lens, specifically designed for sutureless scleral fixation in the ciliary sulcus. RESULTS: The most common indication was exchange of a posterior chamber intraocular lens (70.8%). The surgery lasted a mean of 53.4minutes due to the creation of scleral flaps. The implant was damaged in 12.5% of cases. Visual acuity was improved in 83.3% of cases. The postoperative spherical equivalent was -0.3 diopters, with no change in corneal astigmatism. The implant was centered and stable in all cases. Two cases (2.8%) of cystoid macular edema were observed and resolved over six months. DISCUSSION: A number of advantages of the Carlevale FIL-SSF intraocular lens make it a safe and effective solution for correction of aphakia in the absence of capsular support. It requires a longer than usual surgical procedure, and the implant must be handled with care. From their experience, the authors propose 7 recommendations to accelerate the learning curve. CONCLUSION: In light of the results of this study, we propose the Carlevale FIL-SSF intraocular lens as the new standard for the correction of aphakia without capsular support, but other studies are necessary to determine its exact place within the heirarchy of other available techniques.