Local anaesthesia as a standard of care for penetrating keratoplasty?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To determine preferences in the use of local anaesthesia (LA) versus general anaesthesia (GA) for penetrating keratoplasty (PK), and to examine the safety of LA for PK. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A retrospective analysis of PKs performed at an ophthalmology department in Canada from 01/01/2008 to 01/01/2020 was conducted to investigate rate of major complications. A questionnaire was also sent out to cornea specialists in the United Kingdom (UK) and Canada to determine trends in anaesthesia use for PK. Data on anaesthesia use in keratoplasty data was also obtained from the National Health Service Blood and Tissue (NHSBT) register. RESULTS: The retrospective study found that 2143 PKs were performed under LA by 4 surgeons. The following complications were revealed: 1 acute anxiety attack with tachycardia, 3 extraocular myotoxicity cases requiring squint surgery, 1 expulsive suprachoroidal haemorrhage and 1 retrobulbar haemorrhage. The survey revealed 92% of cornea specialists in Canada preferred LA to GA. In the UK, 4.5% of specialists preferred LA, with most preferring GA due to suprachoroidal haemorrhage risk. NHSBT data revealed that 86.6% of 6181 PKs performed in UK between 01/04/2015 and 31/03/2020 were done under GA. CONCLUSIONS: LA is preferred for PK in Canada, in contrast to the UK where GA is preferred. Our retrospective study suggests a low incidence of LA-related complications. We suggest that LA should be considered for most cornea transplant techniques, including optical penetrating keratoplasty. Rising worldwide keratoplasty numbers, ageing populations and risks of pandemics (e.g. COVID-19) give more reason for reduced reliance on GA.

Surgery for idiopathic epiretinal membrane.

BACKGROUND: Epiretinal membrane is an abnormal sheet of avascular fibrocellular tissue that develops on the inner surface of the retina. Epiretinal membrane can cause impairment of sight as a consequence of progressive distortion of retinal architecture. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of surgery compared to no intervention for epiretinal membrane. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, ISRCTN registry, US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). There were no restrictions to language or year of publication. The databases were last searched on 20 May 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing surgical removal of idiopathic epiretinal membrane compared to placebo, no treatment or sham treatment. Paired or within-person studies were included, as well as those where both eyes of a single participant were treated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane, and assessed certainty using the GRADE system. We considered the following five outcome measures: mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the study eye between baseline (before randomisation), 6 months and 12 months later; proportion of people with a gain of 0.3 logMAR or more of visual acuity in the study eye as measured by a logMAR chart at a starting distance of 4 m at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation; proportion of people with a loss of 0.3 logMAR or more of visual acuity in the study eye as measured by a logMAR chart at a starting distance of 4 m at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation; mean quality of life score at 6 months and 12 months following surgery, measured using a validated questionnaire; and any harm identified during follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included one study in the review. This was a RCT including 53 eyes of 53 participants with mild symptomatic epiretinal membrane and BCVA of 65 or more Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters. Participants were randomly allocated to immediate surgery or to watchful waiting with deferred surgery if indicated by evidence of disease progression. The study was limited by imprecision owing to the small number of participants and was at some risk of bias owing to inconsistencies in the time points for outcome assessment and in the management of lens opacity. At 12 months, the visual acuity in the immediate surgery group was higher by a mean of 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.0 to 6.2 ETDRS letters; 53 participants; low-certainty evidence) than the watchful waiting/deferred surgery group. The evidence of the effect of immediate surgery on gains of 0.3 logMAR or more of visual acuity is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 4.93; 53 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At 12 months, no participant in either group sustained a loss of 0.3 logMAR or more of visual acuity (53 participants; low-certainty evidence). The included study did not measure quality of life. At 12 months, no serious adverse event was identified in any participant. One participant developed chronic minimal cystoid macular oedema following immediate surgery (53 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no RCT that directly investigated the effect of surgery compared to no intervention. For severe disabling epiretinal membrane, the lack of a RCT comparing surgery to no intervention may reflect evidence from non-randomised studies in favour of surgery; a RCT may be considered unnecessary and ethically unacceptable because a superior effect of surgery is widely accepted. For mild symptomatic epiretinal membrane, however, the value of surgery is uncertain. Low-certainty evidence from this review suggests that watchful waiting or deferred surgery may offer outcomes as favourable as immediate surgery. However, this finding needs to be confirmed in further RCTs with appropriate statistical power, masking of treatment allocation, consistent management of cataract, and measurement of outcomes including patient-reported quality of life over a more extended time frame.