Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 11438

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : November | Volume : 16 | Issue : 11 | Page : UC16 - UC21 Full Version

Ropivacaine versus Bupivacaine-lidocaine Mixtures used in Peribulbar Blocks for Cataract Surgery: A Randomised, Triple-blind Clinical Study


Published: November 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/59577.17069
Venkata Ramana Reddy- Moolagani, Salin Kumar- Adusumilli, Narasimha Rao- Arepalli, Gopa Naik- Korra, Owk Mrunalini, Shaik Ameena Bibi

1. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Gayatri Vidya Parishad Institute of Health Care and Medical Technology, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Gayatri Vidya Parishad Institute of Health Care and Medical Technology, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, Gayatri Vidya Parishad Institute of Health Care and Medical Technology, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Gayatri Vidya Parishad Institute of Health Care and Medical Technology, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 5. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Gayatri Vidya Parishad Institute of Health Care and Medical Technology, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 6. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Gayatri Vidya Parishad Institute of Health Care and Medical Technology, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Gopa Naik- Korra,
D.No. 50-83-2/8, Flat No. SF1, Sri Venkateswara Residency Madhuranagar,
Seethampeta, Visakhapatnam-530016, Andhra Pradesh, India.
E-mail: naik2022gaya@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Till recently, for providing anaesthesia for cataract surgeries peribulbar blocks were most commonly employed using various proportions of 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine mixtures. As both these anaesthetic agents were reported to produce cardiovascular and Central Nervous System (CNS) side-effects, safer agents like levobupivacaine and ropivacaine are being introduced into clinical practice.

Aim: To make a comparative evaluation of the characteristics of peribulbar blocks with 0.75% ropivacaine vis-à-vis the popularly used bupivacaine plus lidocaine mixtures.

Materials and Methods: A randomised, single centre and triple-blind clinical study was undertaken between August 2021 and December 2021 comparing ropivacaine versus bupivacaine-lidocaine mixtures. A total of 90 patients attending the hospital for cataract surgeries were allocated into three groups of 30 each. Peribulbar blocks were given with 6 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine in group R, 6 mL of 1:1 mixture of 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine in group BL, and 6 mL of 1:1 mixture of 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine with adrenaline in groups BLA. The primary outcome measure was the total duration of analgesia (pain in the eye of grade >2). The secondary outcome measures studied were the time to onset of the motor and sensory blocks, the total analgesic requirement in the first 24 hours after surgery and changes in the Intraocular Pressures (IOP) after administration of the block. For statistical analysis, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and posthoc test of Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference were used for parametric data and Chi-square test was used for non parametric data and a p-value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The demographic characteristics and the baseline vital signs were comparable in all the three groups. Duration of the analgesia of the block was 4.2±0.79 hours, 3.6±1.08 hours, and 3.8±0.55 hours in groups R, BL and BLA, respectively. The total duration of analgesia was significantly longer in group R. The total analgesic consumption was 58.3 ±18.9, 75±25.42 and 68.3±24.5 and patients of group R had a significantly decreased consumption. There was a significant reduction in IOP in the patients of group R compared to other groups and the differences observed at 5 minutes,10 minutes and 25 minutes intervals were found to be statistically significant. Burning sensation in the eyes while injecting the drug for the peribulbar block was reported by 2, 10 and 12 patients, respectively in groups R, BL and BLA and the patients of group R were found to have less number of burning sensation episodes which was statistically significant (p-value=0.0084). More number of patients and surgeons in groups R had greater satisfaction levels.

Conclusion: In peribulbar blocks, 6 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine produces satisfactory block characteristics with prolonged analgesia, reduced IOP, stable haemodynamics and optimal surgical operating conditions and patient satisfaction levels.

Keywords

Adrenaline, Intraocular pressure, Regional blocks

Ophthalmic surgeries for extraction and implantation of the lens of the eye, popularly called cataract surgeries, are usually performed under peribulbar blocks, using mixtures of 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine (with or without adrenaline). Regional blocks are simple and safe to perform and are economical for the patients and don’t have the complications associated with general anaesthesia (1). Further, they provide excellent postoperative analgesia, reducing the need for postoperative analgesics and this is especially useful for the geriatric age group of cataract patients who usually have multiple co-existing diseases like diabetes mellitus, hypertension and kidney diseases necessitating restricted use of analgesic medicines. A 6-15 mL of 1:1 mixture of 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine with or without adrenaline is the local anaesthetic drug combination used most commonly. Lidocaine used in the mixture is believed to provide quicker onset of the motor and sensory block and bupivacaine to provide a longer duration (2).

Several case studies reported in medical journals reveal that bupivacaine is associated with severe cardiac arrhythmias and neurotoxic effects in the event of an inadvertent intravascular injection while administering the blocks (3),(4),(5),(6),(7). Several published case reports in the medical journals indicate that adverse neurological sequelae and transient neurological symptoms are associated with the use of lidocaine in nerve blocks (8),(9),(10).

Hence safer alternative drugs like ropivacaine and levobupivacaine are being used in recent times in place of the mixtures of bupivacaine and lidocaine. Ropivacaine has a significantly higher threshold for cardiotoxicity and CNS toxicity than bupivacaine due to its less lipophilic and stereoselective properties (3),(11). Cardiotoxicity and CNS toxicity, arising because of inadvertent intravascular injection, is low (12). Resuscitation of patients with cardiac toxicity resulting from ropivacaine is reported to be more successful than bupivacaine-induced cardiac toxicity (13). Further, when used as a mixture, the concentrations of bupivacaine and lidocaine get reduced from 0.5% and 2% to 0.25% and 1%, respectively, thereby weakening their potential to produce the nerve block (14).

Ropivacaine is a pure S (-) enantiomer and blocks the impulse conduction in the nerve fibres by producing reversible inhibition of sodium ion influx and causes vasoconstriction of the orbital blood vessels leading to the lowering of IOP which is considered to be a desirable feature in cataract surgeries (15),(16). Bupivacaine given for peribulbar blocks produces a burning sensation in the eye whereas no such symptoms are reported during ropivacaine injection (17). Compared to bupivacaine on a milligram-to-milligram basis, the potency of ropivacaine is two-thirds of the sensory block and half of the motor block (18). Ropivacaine is used in concentrations of 0.75% and 0.5% in regional blocks and is reported to yield satisfactory sensory block but a weak motor block. Comparison of different concentrations of ropivacaine 1.0%, 0.75% and 0.5% had shown that the concentration of 0.75% was optimal in producing satisfactory block characteristics (19),(20).

It was also desired to assess the effect of adding adrenaline to the bupivacaine plus lidocaine mixture vis a vis bupivacaine plus lidocaine alone in enhancing the block characteristics (21). Hyaluronidase was added as an adjuvant at a concentration of 25 IU/mL for the patients in all three groups, as it is believed to hasten the onset time and enhance the quality of the peribulbar blocks (22). In the backdrop of the above facts, this study was undertaken to evaluate the block characteristics of a 1:1 mixture of 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine (with or without adrenaline) versus 0.75% ropivacaine. The primary outcome measure was the total duration of analgesia (pain in the eye of grade >2). The secondary outcome measures studied were the time to onset of the motor and sensory blocks, the total analgesic requirement in the first 24 hours after surgery, and changes in IOP after administration of the block.

Material and Methods

A randomised, single centre and triple-blind clinical study was conducted in the Medical College Hospital, Gayatri Vidya Parishad Institute of Health Care and Medical Technology, Marikavalasa, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India, from August 2021 and December 2021. The Institutional Ethical Committee (IEC) approval was obtained vide RC No: GVPIHCMT/ IEC/ 20210315/01 dated 15.03.2021, and the study was registered with the clinical trial registry of India vide CTRI/2021/08/035884 before enrollment of the patients for the study.

Details of the study protocol, the methods of various clinical examinations and all consequent risks and benefits were explained to all the participants, and written informed consent was obtained in the presence of two witnesses.

Inclusion criteria: The patients of both sexes of age between 20-80 years, who were of American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status grades I and II, attending the hospital for cataract extraction and implantation of Intraocular Lens (IOL) surgery were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients who were unwilling for the regional block, those who had undergone previous ophthalmic surgery such as buckling surgery, those having high myopia (axial length of eye ball greater than 26 mm), glaucoma, ocular infection, orbital anomaly, posterior staphyloma and those on anticoagulant therapy were excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: Power analysis and sample size calculations were based on a population mean and SD of 4±0.79 hours and 2.2±1.08 hours concerning the duration of analgesia noted in the two groups of patients (n=10), respectively from a pilot study and using the formula:

N=Z2 * (SD2)/d2

where N=sample size in each group; Z=Normal deviate or Unit normal deviate (1.96) SD2=Pooled variance of the two groups, given by the formula SD2=(n1-1) (SD12)+(n2-1) (SD22)/(n1+n2-2) where n1 and SD1 are sample size and SD of group1; n2 and SD2 are sample size and SD of group 2, d=precision or allowable error (<20% of the difference of the means of the two groups). With 80% power and 5% alpha error, a sample size of 26 patients per group was calculated and incorporating a compensation for an assumed dropout rate of 10%, a final sample size of 30 patients in each group was felt necessary.

The primary outcome measure studied, was the total duration of analgesia as measured by the time elapsed from the total sensory block to the time when patients complained of pain in the eye of >grade 2 intensity on a numerical rating scale. The secondary outcome measures studied were the time to onset of the motor and sensory blocks, the total analgesic requirement in the first 24 hours after surgery and changes iop after administration of the block. Alterations in Pulse Rate (PR), Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), Respiratory Rate (RR) and peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2), number of supplemental injections given to obtain the adequate block, complications encountered in the intraoperative and postoperative periods and patient and surgeon satisfaction levels with the anaesthetic technique were noted for statistical analysis.

Patients were allocated to three study groups of 30 each (n=30) through a computer-generated random grouping software: group R (ropivacaine group), group BL (bupivacaine and lidocaine group) and group BLA (bupivacaine, lidocaine and adrenaline group). Patients of the group R were given 6 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine; those of group BL were given 3 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine and 3 mL of 2% lidocaine and those of group BLA were given 3 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine and 3 mL of 2% lidocaine with adrenaline (adrenaline 1 in 2 lakh concentration i.e., 5 μg/mL). Hyaluronidase 150 IU (concentration of 25 IU/mL) was added to the anaesthetic agents for all the patients in the three groups.

A convenient sample of 100 consecutive patients was taken for the study from among those attending the medical college hospital during the study period. These participants were screened as per the study protocol.

Study Procedure

All the patients were examined in the preanaesthetic clinic. Physical examination, relevant investigations, and a B-scan echography to know the axial length of the eyeball were carried out, wherever indicated. The envelope method was used for patient randomisation. Patients were advised to follow standard fasting guidelines on the day of surgery and alprazolam 0.25 mg was given as premedication the night before the surgery. In the preoperative room intravenous access was established with a 20-gauge intravenous cannula and standard monitoring equipment was employed like non invasive blood pressure, pulse-oximeter and electrocardiogram. The anaesthesiologist assessing the block characteristics, the surgeon and the patients were blinded for the drugs being administered. All the relevant clinical data for statistical analysis were recorded on a separate data sheet for each patient.

Using all aseptic precautions, peribulbar blocks were administered after disinfecting the skin over the eyelids with 5% povidone-iodine. Patients were advised to fix their eyeballs in the neutral gaze position and a transcutaneous dual-injection technique was used through the lower eyelid in the inferotemporal quadrant and in the upper eyelid in the superonasal quadrant with a 25 mm long and 24-gauge short bevel needle (23). After a negative aspiration test for blood for excluding inadvertent intravascular injection, total of 6 mL of the drug was injected over 30-40 seconds; 4 mL in the lower eyelid and 2 mL in the upper eyelid. Gentle intermittent digital pressure was exerted over the eyeball to facilitate the spread of the anaesthetic solution and lower the IOP (24).

In the operation theatre routine monitoring equipment were applied and PR, MAP, RR and SpO2 were monitored and recorded throughout the operation period at every five-minute interval till the end of the surgery and then at every 30 minutes in the postoperative ward till complete recovery. IOP was measured with Perkins’s hand-held applanation tonometer before administration of the block and at 5, 10, 15 and 20 minutes after the block after instilling a drop of 0.5% proparacaine hydrochloride topical solution. A mixture of air and oxygen was insufflated under the drapes during the surgery to prevent rebreathing.

Adverse events such as bradycardia, hypotension, bradypnoea, headache, nausea and vomiting were noted and appropriately treated. Postoperative pain was assessed using a numerical rating scale on 0-10 gradings (25) and, if the score is >grade 2 intensity, rescue analgesia was provided with tablet diclofenac 50 mg orally and the time when rescue analgesia was given was noted for assessing the total duration of analgesia of the block. Assessment of the movements of the eyeball and regression of sensory block was not done in the postoperative period so as to avoid causing postoperative infection of the operated eye. All the patients were assessed regarding the occurrence of the pain of grade >2 intensity on a numerical rating scale while administering the block and their responses were noted and the differences in the occurrence of pain were analysed for statistical significance. On the 1st postoperative day, patients and surgeons were requested to grade their satisfaction level regarding the anaesthetic technique on a 3-point verbal rating score (26). A score of 2 or 3 was taken as an acceptable satisfaction level both in the case of the patients and the surgeons and a score of one was taken as an unsatisfactory level.

Statistical Analysis

Quantitative data were expressed as mean±SD and the qualitative non parametric data as the number and percentages and Microsoft excel 2013 was utilised for compiling the data. The differences between the groups regarding the parametric data were analysed by using ANOVA and the Post Hoc Tukey’s HSD beta (honestly significant difference beta) test was used for intergroup comparisons. For analysing the non parametric data the Chi-square test was used. Statistical analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), Inc./IBM, Chicago, IL and p-values of ≤0.05 were considered as statistically significant.

Results

As no patient in any group dropped out from the study, the data of all the patients were included in the statistical analysis. The particulars of the patients participating in the study in the various study phases are depicted as a flow diagram as per Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines (Table/Fig 1). The demographic characteristics such as age, gender, height, weight, the axial length of the eyeball, ASA grade, duration of the surgery and side of the eye operated were comparable in all the three groups as shown in the table (Table/Fig 2). Baseline vital signs such as HR, MAP, SpO2 and RR were comparable in all the groups.

The onset time of sensory block was shorter in group R compared to the other two groups, but this difference was not found to be statistically significant. The onset time of the motor block of the eyeball (akinesia) was shorter in group BLA compared to the other two groups. The onset time of paralysis of the eyelids was shorter in group BLA compared to the other two groups, but this difference was not found statistically significant. Duration of the analgesia was longer in group R compared to the other two groups and this difference was found statistically significant at a p-value 0.02034. The addition of adrenaline as an adjuvant to the anaesthetic mixture of bupivacaine and lidocaine had the effect of increasing the total duration of the block attained as seen in a pairwise comparison of groups BL and BLA though this difference was not statistically significant. The total analgesic consumption (diclofenac sodium in milligrams) on the day of surgery was lower in comparison to the other two groups and this difference was statistically significant at p-value 0.00330 (Table/Fig 3). Changes noted in IOP at baseline and at intervals of 5,10,15,20 and 25 minutes after the administration of the block are shown as line diagram (Table/Fig 4). There was a significant reduction in IOP at all intervals noted in the patients of group R compared to other groups; and the differences observed in the reduction of IOP at 5 minutes, 10 minutes and 25 minutes intervals were found to be statistically significant (Table/Fig 4).

There were a few cases of hypotension, bradycardia, headache, nausea and vomiting noted during the surgery and in the postoperative period in the three groups of patients and the differences in the incidence were not statistically significant. Burning sensation in the eyes while injecting the drug for the peribulbar block was reported by 2, 10 and 12 patients, respectively in groups R, BL and BLA and less number of patients in group R had incidence of burning and the differences observed were found to be statistically significant at a p-value of 0.0084. No patient in any group required a supplementary injection for obtaining a successful block and none had chemosis conjunctiva or fall in SpO2 levels during the course of surgery. There were no instances of systemic toxicity, drug allergy, oculocardiac reflex and dry mouth in any of the patients.

Patient satisfaction levels with the anaesthetic technique were analysed and it was observed that more patients in groups R had greater satisfaction levels in comparison with those of groups BL and BLA and the differences were statistically significant at a p-value of 0.0379. Surgeons operating on the patients of group R had expressed satisfaction levels about the anaesthetic technique in more cases than the other two groups and the differences in the numbers noted were statistically significant at a p-value of 0.0173 (Table/Fig 5).

Discussion

Regional blocks like the peribulbar blocks are most commonly used for performing cataract surgeries in the elderly population of patients because of their safe and simple nature. Traditionally mixtures of 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine were used in various proportions in volumes ranging from 6-15 mL. It is also believed that the addition of adrenaline to the anaesthetic drug mixture enhances the block characteristics besides prolonging the block duration. However, there are several case reports published recently which indicate that lidocaine used in nerve blocks produces hypersensitivity reactions and transient neurological symptoms. The use of bupivacaine in nerve blocks is reported to result in severe cardiotoxicity in the event of an inadvertent intravascular injection. In the search for a safer and more effective local anaesthetic agent, levobupivacaine and ropivacaine were introduced into recent clinical practice. The safety profile of ropivacaine used in regional blocks was brought forth by several recent studies. As ropivacaine is considered a weak local anaesthetic agent in comparison with bupivacaine, it was decided to use an equipotent concentration of 0.75% ropivacaine for comparison with a 0.5% bupivacaine-lidocaine mixture.

In the present study, comparative evaluation of 0.75%, ropivacaine was done against a mixture of 0.5% bupivacaine plus 2% lidocaine and a mixture of 0.5% bupivacaine plus 2% lidocaine with adrenaline as it was aimed to assess the effect of adding adrenaline as an adjuvant to the anaesthetic agents bupivacaine and lidocaine. The results show that ropivacaine 0.75% used alone in a volume of 6 mL was better than that of a mixture of bupivacaine 0.5% plus lidocaine 2% (with or without adrenaline added). The addition of adrenaline delayed the onset time of the block and reduced the total duration of the block.

A literature review of other works revealed that Gioia L et al., (27) compared a 1:1 mixture of 2% plain lidocaine and 0.5% plain bupivacaine with ropivacaine in 8 mL volume given through a single injection technique and reported that the onset of motor block was longer in the ropivacaine group. In the present study onset times of motor block were observed as 3.4±0.89 minutes, 3±1.6 minutes and 2.9±1.17 minutes in groups R, BL and BLA, respectively. The earlier onset of motor block in the present study may be due to the employment of hyaluronidase and the dual injection technique used in the present study. They reported that supplemental injections were required in the lidocaine bupivacaine group for obtaining adequate surgical block. In the present study, it was noted that no case needed supplemental injections and this could be due to the dual injection technique and hyaluronidase employed in the present study.

Comparing ropivacaine with bupivacaine in peribulbar blocks, Jaichandran VV et al., concluded that the patients of their ropivacaine (0.75%) group had an earlier onset of sensory block. In the present study onset of sensory block of 2±0.69 minutes and akinesia 2.2±1.18 minutes were observed in the ropivacaine (0.75%) group and these findings are in near agreement with theirs. They reported that in 97% of cases there was no requirement for supplemental injections whereas in the present study no case required any supplemental injections for obtaining a complete block (28).

Trivedi L et al., evaluated 60 patients subjected to small incision cataract surgery under ropivacaine 0.75% or bupivacaine 0.5% with the addition of hyaluronidase and concluded that the ropivacaine group had shown a greater reduction in IOP (p<0.05) than the bupivacaine group (29). In the present study, statistically significant reductions in IOP were noted at almost all intervals in the patients of group R compared to the other groups and these findings are in total agreement with their observations.

Borazan M et al., compared bupivacaine 0.5% and lidocaine 2% mixture with levobupivacaine 0.75% and ropivacaine 1%. They found all agents convenient for cataract surgery (30). The results of the present study differ from theirs as the patients of the ropivacaine group of the present study had a longer duration of analgesia, reduced IOP, reduced injection pain and improved surgeon and patient satisfaction levels regarding the anaesthetic technique in comparison to patients given a mixture of bupivacaine 0.5% and lidocaine 2%. This difference could be due to the use of hyaluronidase and the double injection technique employed in the present study.

Comparing the effects of ropivacaine 0.75%; and bupivacaine 0.5%-lidocaine 2% combination on IOP, quality of block, and degree of postoperative pain in peribulbar blocks, Ozcan AA et al., (31) found ropivacaine better than bupivacaine-lidocaine mixture, as it reduced the intraocular pressure and postoperative pain (31). These findings are in total agreement with the observations of the present study. Varshney R et al., concluded that ropivacaine was a good alternative for peribulbar anaesthesia compared to bupivacaine/lignocaine as it has a faster onset and lesser toxic effects than other comparable local anaesthetic agents (32). The findings of the present study are in partial agreement with their observations regarding the faster onset of the block. Nociti JR et al., made a comparative study between ropivacaine and bupivacaine and concluded that no patient in their ropivacaine group complained of a burning sensation during the injection but 22.5% of the patients given bupivacaine reported a burning sensation (33). In the present study burning sensation while giving an injection was reported in less number of patients in the ropivacaine group in comparison to patients of other groups.

Limitation(s)

Duration of motor and sensory block could not be assessed postoperatively by examination of the patient’s operated eye as the patient’s eye was bandaged postoperatively. Hyaluronidase and adrenaline added as adjuvants to the local anaesthetic drugs could have acted as confounding variables in this study.

Conclusion

On the basis of the findings of the present study, it is concluded that ropivacaine 0.75% used in a volume of 6 mL with 150 IU of hyaluronidase for peribulbar blocks performed by transcutaneous double injection technique produces a longer duration of analgesia, reduced IOP, stable haemodynamic profile, reduced injection pain and improved surgeon and patient satisfaction levels regarding the anaesthetic technique in comparison to a mixture of bupivacaine 0.5% and lidocaine 2% (with or without adrenaline added) and hence is a better agent than the others. The addition of adrenaline to the bupivacaine and lidocaine mixture had no statistically significant effect on the block characteristics. Large-scale multicentre studies including ASA grade 3 and 4 patients and excluding confounding variables are warranted for better validation of the study findings.

References

1.
Friedman D, Bass E, Lubomski L, Fleisher L, Kempen J, Magaziner J, et al. Synthesis of the literature on the effectiveness of regional anesthesia for cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(3):519-29. [crossref] [PubMed]
2.
Wong DHW. Regional anaesthesia for intraocular surgery. Can J Anaesthesia 1993;40:635-57. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Graf BM, Abraham I, Eberbach N, Kunst G, Stowe DF, Martin E. Differences in cardiotoxicity of bupivacaine and ropivacaine are the result of physicochemical and stereoselective properties. Anesthesiology. 2002;96(6):1427-34. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Kuthiala G, Chaudhary G. Ropivacaine: A review of its pharmacology and clinical use. Indian J Anaesth. 2011;55(2):104-10. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Casetti A, Bacierello M. Enantiomeric local anesthetics, can ropivacaine and levobupivacaine improve our practice. Curr Drug Ther. 2006;1(1):85-89. [crossref]
6.
Egashira T, Fukasaki M, Araki H, Araki H, Sakai A, Okada M, et al. Comparative efficacy of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine for epidural block in outpatients with degenerative spinal disease. Pain Physician. 2014;17(6):525-29. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Feldman HS, Arthur GR, Pitkanen M, Hurley R, Doucette AM, Covino BG. Treatment of acute systemic toxicity after the rapid intravenous injection of ropivacaine and bupivacaine in the conscious dog. Anesth Analg. 1991;73(4):373-84. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Gozdemir M, Muslu B, Sert H, Usta B, Demircioglu RI, Kasikara H. Transient neurological symptoms after spinal anesthesia. Clin Invest Med. 2016;39(6):27512. PMID: 27917802. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Freedman JM, Li DK, Drasner K, Jaskela MC, Larsen B, Wi S. Transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anesthesia: An epidemiologic study of 1,863 patients. Anesthesiology. 1998;89(3):633-41. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Hampl KF, Heinzmann-Wiedmer S, Luginbuehl I, Harms C, Seeberger M, Schneider MC, et al. Transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anesthesia: A lower incidence with prilocaine and bupivacaine than with lidocaine. Anesthesiology. 1998;88(3):629-33. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Dony P, Dewinde V, Vanderick B, Cuignet O, Gautier P, Legrand E, et al. The comparative toxicity of ropivacaine and bupivacaine at equipotent doses in rats. Anesth Analg. 2000;91(6):1489-92. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Selander D, Sjovall J, Waldenlind L. Accidental i.v injections of ropivacaine: Clinical experience of six cases [abstract]. Reg Anaesth. 1997;22:70.
13.
Stewart J, Kellett N, Castro D. The central nervous system and cardiovascular effects of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in healthy volunteers. Anesth Analg. 2003;97(2):412-16. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Moolagani RRV, Burla SR, Neethipudi BR. Effect of a mixture of bupivacaine and lidocaine versus bupivacaine alone used for peribulbar blocks for cataract surgeries. Indian J App Res. 2019;9(7):52-55.
15.
Hansen TG. Ropivacaine: A pharmacological review. Expert Rev Neurother. 2004;4(5):781-91. [crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Joshi N, Reynolds A, Porter EJB, Rubin AP, Kinnear PE. An assessment of intraocular pressure during fractionated peribulbar anesthesia. Eye (Lond). 1996;10(Pt 5): 565-68. [crossref] [PubMed]
17.
Jaichandran VV. Ophthalmic regional anaesthesia: A review and update. Indian J Anaesth. 2013;57:07-13. [crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Kallio H, Snäll ET, Kero MP, Rosenberg PH. A comparison of intrathecal plain solutions containing ropivacaine 20 or 15 mg versus bupivacaine 10 mg. Anesth Analg. 2004;99(3):713-17. [crossref] [PubMed]
19.
Uy HS, de Jesus AA, Paray AA, Flores JD, Felizar LB. Ropivacaine-lidocaine versus bupivacaine-lidocaine for retrobulbar anesthesia in cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28(6):1023-26. [crossref] [PubMed]
20.
Gioia L, Fanelli G, Casati A, Nuti U, Mennella R, Scarioni M, et al. A prospective, randomized, doubleblinded comparison of ropivacaine 0.5%, 0.75%, and 1% ropivacaine for peribulbar block. J Clin Anesth. 2004;16(3):184-88. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Demirok A, Simşek S, Cinal A, Yaşar T. Peribulbar anesthesia: One versus two injections. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1997;28(12):998-1001. [crossref] [PubMed]
22.
Nicoll JM, Treuren B, Acharya PA, Ahlen K, James M. Retrobulbar anesthesia: The role of hyaluronidase. Anest Analg. 1986:65(12):1324-28. [crossref]
23.
Guise P, Laurent S. Sub-Tenon’s block: The effect of hyaluronidase on speed of onset and block quality. Anaesth Intensive Cwere. 1999;27(2):179-81. [crossref] [PubMed]
24.
Kumar CM, Dodds C. Ophthalmic Regional blocks: Review article. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2006;35(3):158-67.
25.
Beilin Y, Hossain S, Bodian CA. The numerical rating scale labour epidural analgesia. Anaesth Analg. 2003;96(6):1794-98. [crossref] [PubMed]
26.
Moolagani VR, Burla SR, Neethipudi BR, Upadhyayula SM, Bikkina A, Arepalli NR. Ropivacaine plus lidocaine versus bupivacaine plus lidocaine used for peribulbar blocks in cataract surgeries: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, single-center, comparative clinical study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2019;35(4):498-503. [crossref] [PubMed]
27.
Gioia L, Prandi E, Codenotti M, Casati A, Fanelli G, Torri TM, et al. Peribulbar anesthesia with either 0.75% ropivacaine or a 2% lidocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine mixture for vitreoretinal surgery: A double-blinded study. Anesth Analg.1999;89(3):739-42. [crossref] [PubMed]
28.
Jaichandran VV, Srinivasan S, Raman S, Jagadeesh V, Raman R. A prospective comparison of the efficacy of 0.5% bupivacaine vs 0.75% ropivacaine in peribulbar anesthesia for vitreoretinal surgery. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020;68(1):153-56. [crossref] [PubMed]
29.
Trivedi L, Trivedi H, Tripathi D, Jha P, Bhalani K, Raval P. Comparison of ropivacaine 0.75% and bupivacaine 0.5% in peribulbar block for cataract surgery. The Internet Journal of Anesthesiology. 2009;23(2):01-05. [crossref]
30.
Borazan M, Karalezli A, Oto S, Algan C, Aydin Akova Y. Comparison of a bupivacaine 0.5% and lidocaine 2% mixture with levobupivacaine 0.75% and ropivacaine 1% in peribulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgery with phacoemulsification. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85(8):844-47. [crossref] [PubMed]
31.
Ozcan AA, Ozdemir N, Günes Y, Bozkurt A, Yagmur M, Alparslan ZN. Intraocular pressure, quality of block, and degree of pain associated with ropivacaine in peribulbar block: A comparative randomized study with bupivacaine-lidocaine mixture. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2003;13(9-10):794-97. [crossref] [PubMed]
32.
Varshney R, Sharma V, Palaria U. Ropivacaine versus bupivacaine-lignocaine mixture in peribulbar block- A comparative study. J Evolution Med Dent Sci. 2017;6(48):3703-06. [crossref]
33.
Nociti JR, Serzedo PS, Zuccolotto EB, Cagnolati CA, Nunes AM. Ropivacaine in peribulbar block: A comparative study with bupivacaine. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1999;43(8):799-802. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/59577.17069

Date of Submission: Aug 16, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Sep 17, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Oct 01, 2022
Date of Publishing: Nov 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Aug 21, 2022
• Manual Googling: Sep 27, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Sep 30, 2022 (20%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com