Are ultrasound-guided ophthalmic blocks injurious to the eye? A comparative rabbit model study of two ultrasound devices evaluating intraorbital thermal and structural changes.

BACKGROUND: Since Atkinson's original description of retrobulbar block in 1936, needle-based anesthetic techniques have become integral to ophthalmic anesthesia. These techniques are unfortunately associated with rare, grave complications such as globe perforation. Ultrasound has gained widespread acceptance for peripheral nerve blockade, but its translation to ocular anesthesia has been hampered because sonic energy, in the guise of thermal or biomechanical insult, is potentially injurious to vulnerable eye tissue. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has defined guidelines for safe use of ultrasound for ophthalmic examination, but most ultrasound devices used by anesthesiologists are not FDA-approved for ocular application because they generate excessive energy. Regulating agencies state that ultrasound examinations can be safely undertaken as long as tissue temperatures do not increase >1.5°C above physiological levels. METHODS: Using a rabbit model, we investigated the thermal and mechanical ocular effects after prolonged ultrasonic exposure to single orbital- and nonorbital-rated devices. In a dual-phase study, aimed at detecting ocular injury, the eyes of 8 rabbits were exposed to continuous 10-minute ultrasound examinations from 2 devices: (1) the Sonosite Micromaxx (nonorbital rated) and (2) the Sonomed VuMax (orbital rated) machines. In phase I, temperatures were continuously monitored via thermocouples implanted within specific eye structures (n = 4). In phase II the eyes were subjected to ultrasonic exposure without surgical intervention (n = 4). All eyes underwent light microscopy examinations, followed at different intervals by histology evaluations conducted by an ophthalmic pathologist. RESULTS: Temperature changes were monitored in the eyes of 4 rabbits. The nonorbital-rated transducer produced increases in ocular tissue temperature that surpassed the safe limit (increases >1.5°C) in the lens of 3 rabbits (at 5.0, 5.5, and 1.5 minutes) and cornea of 2 rabbits (both at 1.5 minutes). A secondary analysis of temporal temperature differences between the orbital-rated and nonorbital transducers revealed statistically significant differences (Bonferroni-adjusted P < 0.05) in the cornea at 3.5 minutes, the lens at 2.5 minutes, and the vitreous at 4.0 minutes. Light microscopy and histology failed to elicit ocular injury in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The nonorbital-rated ultrasound machine (Sonosite Micromaxx) increases the ocular tissue temperature. A larger study is needed to establish safety. Until then, ophthalmic ultrasound-guided blocks should only be performed with ocular-rated devices.

Evaluation of an integrated orbital tissue expander in an anophthalmic feline model.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the anatomical effects and tissue biocompatibility in a feline model of an integrated orbital tissue expander (OTE) designed to stimulate bone growth in an anophthalmic socket. DESIGN: An animal study was performed in cats to assess orbital bone growth with and without an OTE. METHODS: The OTE is an inflatable (0.5 to >6.0 cm(3)) polymeric globe sliding on a titanium T plate secured to the lateral orbital rim with screws. Eight cats had left eye enucleation at age two weeks, with five orbits receiving an OTE and the remaining three serving as nonimplanted controls. Serial transconjunctival implant inflation was performed by injecting normal saline solution into the OTE to a final volume of 3.5 ml. Serial computed tomographic scans were obtained to assess socket growth. All eight cats were euthanized at 18 weeks and dry skulls prepared. The effective orbital volume was measured by inflating an OTE in the orbit of a dry skull until it filled the cavity completely. RESULTS: Three cats periodically scratched open the tarsorrhaphy and conjunctiva to rupture the OTE, which resulted in implant exchanges. At 18 weeks, the OTE expanded orbital volume was approximately 18% smaller than the normal contralateral side. In the control animals, the anophthalmic orbital volume was approximately 66% smaller than the contralateral orbit. Histopathology of orbital tissues showed no evidence of foreign body reaction. CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-concept pilot study demonstrated implant efficacy in cats, and no implant-related adverse effects were observed. OTE has the potential to stimulate bone growth in human anophthalmic orbits.