Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for
- Author or Editor: Kyle J. Bartholomew x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy of low-volume (5-mL) locoregional retrobulbar anesthesia (“retrobulbar block”) by use of 3 commercial local anesthetic formulations.
ANIMALS
8 healthy adult mares.
METHODS
A block-randomized, masked, controlled design was used. A single ultrasound-guided retrobulbar block was performed with 2% lidocaine, 2% mepivacaine, or 0.5% bupivacaine (n = 5 eyes/group). Contralateral eyes served as untreated controls. End points performed at baseline and time intervals up to 24 hours postblock included the following: assessment of neurophthalmic reflexes/responses, intraocular pressure, and vertical pupil diameter measurement, corneal and periocular esthesiometry, and observation for adverse effects.
RESULTS
Low-volume block did not result in increased intraocular pressure or other adverse effects at any time point in any treatment group. Statistically significant corneal anesthesia (P < .001) was observed 1 minute after block in all groups, persisting through 4 hours after lidocaine or mepivacaine block and through 24 hours after bupivacaine block. Clinically significant periocular anesthesia was not observed in any group. Significant vertical pupil diameter increase (P < .05) was observed for up to 4 hours after lidocaine or mepivacaine block and 6 hours after bupivacaine block.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Low-volume retrobulbar block with any of the 3 local anesthetic drugs evaluated was not associated with adverse effects. In terms of efficacy, mepivacaine block showed no clinical advantage over lidocaine block. However, bupivacaine block induced comparatively rapid and sustained corneal anesthesia. In comparison to published findings using a larger injection volume, low-volume retrobulbar block with lidocaine produced clinically comparable corneal anesthesia. However, periocular soft tissue anesthesia was not achieved with any local anesthetic drug at low volume.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness of preoperative bupivacaine inferotemporal retrobulbar blocks to postoperative liposome-encapsulated bupivacaine (Nocita) line blocks for analgesia following enucleation.
ANIMALS
39 client-owned dogs (40 eyes) presenting to the Ophthalmology Service for enucleation.
METHODS
Dogs were randomly assigned to receive either a preoperative inferotemporal retrobulbar block with 0.5% bupivacaine or a peri-incisional line block with liposome-encapsulated bupivacaine (Nocita) at closure. Patients underwent unilateral enucleation and were hospitalized for 24 hours after surgery. Pain scores were performed by a masked observer with the Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale and the University of Wisconsin Ocular Pain Scale at 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 24 hours following surgery. Intraoperative use of blood pressure and anesthetic support mediations as well as need for rescue pain control were recorded and compared between groups.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference in rescue rates between treatment groups. When comparing the use of medical intraoperative heart rate, blood pressure, or anesthetic plane support, there were no significant differences in use between groups.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Use of preoperative bupivacaine retrobulbar blocks and postoperative Nocita line blocks were equally effective at postoperative pain control with similarly low complication rates.
