REPLACEMENT OF LIDOCAINE GEL WITH TOPICAL PROPARACAINE ANESTHESIA FOR ROUTINE INTRAVITREAL INJECTIONS: A Comparative Study.

PURPOSE: Lidocaine gel was suggested to be highly effective in providing anesthesia for intravitreal injections but adverse effects include a possibility of making sterilization of the conjunctiva difficult. Hence, we wished to determine the effect of using 0.5% proparacaine drops alone over the use of 3.5% lidocaine hydrochloride gel anesthesia during office-based intravitreal injections. METHODOLOGY: This was a case-control study in patients who came routinely to the clinic for antivascular endothelial growth factor injections. Eyes were treated with one of two anesthesia modalities. A total of 216 injections in 120 patients were reviewed. One group (N = 107) underwent anesthesia with 0.5% proparacaine drops, and the control group (N = 109) received 3.5% lidocaine gel. The pain perceived after injection was graded using the numerical rating scale, and score was immediately recorded by the "masked" injecting physician. RESULTS: The mean pain score (±SD) for the proparacaine-only group versus gel group was 1.97 (±1.17) versus 1.76 (±0.92), P value = 0.3174. There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: 3.5% lidocaine gel is not superior to 0.5% proparacaine drops as patients attained good pain control and excellent rates of overall satisfaction with proparacaine drops alone.

Microbiological Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes of Acinetobacter spp. Endophthalmitis with the First Reported Case of Acinetobacter haemolyticus Endophthalmitis.

AIM: To present the microbiological details and clinical outcomes of Acinetobacter spp. endophthalmitis with the first reported case of A. haemolyticus. METHODS: A retrospective study of microbiologically proven Acinetobacter spp. endophthalmitis was carried out from 2010 to 2015. The data collected included age, type of endophthalmitis, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), species involved, and antibiotic susceptibility pattern. The primary outcomes measured were anatomical outcomes in terms of globe integrity and functional outcome as BCVA at last follow-up. RESULTS: Eleven patients out of 3004 patients who underwent surgery for endophthalmitis were due to Acinetobacter spp. Seven cases (63.6%) were both smear and culture positive; there were two cases (18%) each of A. haemolyticus and A. baumanii. Four cases (36%) were only culture positive with negative smear. Three cases (27.2%) were polymicrobial. Ten cases (91%) were susceptible to amikacin and nine (82%) to ciprofloxacin. Six (54.5%) were resistant to ceftazidime. Mean logMAR BCVA improved to 1.8 (20/1330) from an initial 2.5 (20/6839). Pthisis bulbi was seen in two cases (18%). CONCLUSIONS: Even though the outcomes of Acinetobacter spp. endophthalmitis are modest to poor, outcomes following intervention are relatively good for A. haemolyticus. These cases have good susceptibility to amikacin, but are often resistant to ceftazidime.