American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 127, Issue 4 , Pages 393-402, April 1999

Comparison of preservative-free bupivacaine vs lidocaine for intracameral anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial and in vitro analysis

  • Nicole J Anderson, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (Drs N.J. Anderson and Edelhauser)
  • ,
  • Rajiv Nath, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA (Drs. C.J. Anderson and Nath)
  • ,
  • C.Joseph Anderson, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA (Drs. C.J. Anderson and Nath)
  • ,
  • Henry F Edelhauser, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (Drs N.J. Anderson and Edelhauser)
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Henry F. Edelhauser, PhD, Department of Ophthalmology, Emory Eye Center, Ste B2600, 1365B Clifton Rd, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30322; fax: (404) 778-4143

Accepted 23 October 1998.

Abstract 

Purpose: To determine whether intracameral bupivacaine hydrochloride 0.5% is as effective as lidocaine hydrochloride1.0% in controlling discomfort of patients during phacoemulsification and posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. In rabbits, corneal endothelial cell function, ultrastructure, and viability were evaluated after in vitro perfusion of bupivacaine 0.5%.

Methods: In a double-masked, controlled trial, 48 eyes of 48 patients with uncomplicated age-related cataract were randomly assigned to receive bupivacaine 0.5% or lidocaine 1.0% intracamerally before phacoemulsification with a posterior chamber intraocular lens. Outcome measures such as pain, visual acuity, amount of sedation, length of surgery, pupil size, intraocular pressure, corneal clarity, and anterior chamber reaction were compared. In laboratory studies, paired rabbit corneas were evaluated by endothelial cell perfusion with either bupivacaine 0.5%, bupivacaine 0.5% and glutathione bicarbonate Ringer solution in a 1:1 ratio or bupivacaine 0.5% buffered to a pH of 7.0. The paired control corneas were perfused with glutathione bicarbonate Ringer solution and rates of corneal swelling were determined. Cell ultrastructure and viability were also evaluated.

Results: In the randomized trial, there was no significant difference in the pain patients had during surgery or in the early or late postoperative period. No statistically significant difference was seen between the two groups in terms of pupil size, intraocular pressure, corneal edema, anterior chamber reaction, or visual acuity immediately after the operation or on postoperative day 1. Paired rabbit corneas perfused with bupivacaine 0.5% and bupivacaine 0.5% buffered to a pH of 7.0 swelled significantly (P < .001, P = .009, respectively), and had corneal endothelial cell damage. Dilution of the bupivacaine 1:1 with glutathione bicarbonate Ringer solution prevented corneal edema and damage to the corneal endothelium. Endothelial cell viability was also decreased after perfusion of bupivacaine 0.5% (P < .001).

Conclusions: Clinically, bupivacaine 0.5% is as effective as lidocaine 1.0% for anesthesia during phacoemulsification and posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. However, in vitro perfusion of bupivacaine 0.5% damaged the corneal endothelium of rabbits except when the drug was diluted 1:1 with glutathione bicarbonate Ringer solution. Surgeons who use 0.2 to 0.5 ml of intracameral bupivacaine 0.5% should be aware of its potential to cause endothelial cell damage because of its lipid solubility. The bupivacaine 0.5% should be diluted at least 1:1 with balanced salt solution before intracameral injection, followed immediately by phacoemulsification. The surgeon should ensure that the bupivacaine 0.5% is nonpreserved and packaged in single-use vials or flip-top containers.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supported in part by the National Eye Institute grants R01 EY00933 (Dr Edelhauser), P30 EY06360 (Dr Edelhauser), and T32 EY7092 (Dr Anderson and Dr Edelhauser), the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, and Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc, New York, New York.

PII: S0002-9394(98)00417-6

American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 127, Issue 4 , Pages 393-402, April 1999