Synthesis of the literature on the effectiveness of regional anesthesia for cataract surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the findings of the randomized trials of regional anesthesia management strategies for cataract surgery. DESIGN: Literature review and analysis. METHOD: The authors performed a systematic search of the literature to identify all articles pertaining to regional anesthesia during cataract surgery on adults. One investigator abstracted the content of each article onto a custom-designed form. A second investigator corroborated the findings. The evidence supporting the anesthesia approaches was graded by consensus as good, fair, poor, or insufficient. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Evidence supporting the effectiveness of different forms of regional anesthesia. RESULTS: There was good evidence that retrobulbar and peribulbar blocks provide equivalent akinesia and pain control during cataract surgery. Additionally, sub-Tenon's blocks were at least as effective as retrobulbar and peribulbar blocks. There was good evidence that retrobulbar block provides better pain control during surgery than topical anesthesia, and there was fair evidence that peribulbar block provides better pain control than topical anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: This synthesis of the literature demonstrates that currently used approaches to anesthesia management provide adequate pain control for successful cataract surgery, but there is some variation in the effectiveness of the most commonly used techniques. Data are needed on patient preferences to determine the optimal strategies for anesthesia management during cataract surgery.

The methodologic quality of clinical trials on regional anesthesia for cataract surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodologic quality of published randomized trials of regional anesthesia management strategies for cataract surgery. DESIGN: Literature review and analysis. METHOD: We performed a systematic search of the literature to identify all articles pertaining to regional anesthesia for cataract surgery on adults. Overall quality scores and scores for individual methodologic domains were based on the evaluations of two investigators experienced in methodologic research who independently reviewed all relevant articles using a quality abstraction form. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Study quality in each of five domains: representativeness, bias and confounding, intervention description, outcomes and follow-up, and statistical quality and interpretation. RESULTS: Eighty-two randomized clinical trials were identified with a mean overall quality score of 44%. The mean domain scores ranged from 37% for representativeness to 58% for outcomes and follow-up. Forty percent or fewer studies received the maximum score for reporting the setting, the population, and the start and end dates; describing the inclusion and exclusion criteria; adequately randomizing subjects; and adequately masking individuals participating in the study. Key outcomes were often inadequately reported, including the distribution of patient-reported pain scores and the mean surgical time. CONCLUSIONS: Greater attention to methodologic quality and detailed reporting of study results will improve the ability of readers to interpret the results of clinical trials assessing regional anesthesia for cataract surgery.