Penetrating keratoplasty using topical anesthesia.

A. Cheng,Srinivas K. Rao,D. Lam
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ICO.0000155029.56176.57
IF: 3.152
2005-08-01
Cornea
Abstract:To the Editor: We read with interest the article by Riddle and co-authors on the use of topical anesthesia for penetrating keratoplasty. Although topical anesthesia is extensively used in cataract surgeries, trabeculectomy, and even pars plana vitrectomy, all these procedures involve the use of instrumentation in a ‘‘closed globe’’ situation. Eye position and movement can be controlled to a reasonable extent even if the patient moves. The situation is different during an open-sky surgery such as penetrating keratoplasty. Even if topical medications can provide adequate anesthesia, they can not provide akinesia. An attempt to hold the globe using instruments can result in unnecessary external pressure, which may cause extrusion of intraocular contents, as mentioned by the authors. We are also not sure of the effects of the preservatives present in topical anesthetics, when they enter the intraocular milieu through the perforation. Apart from ocular movements, the patient may inadvertently squeeze the eyelids, and this can result in even more serious complications. Even in eyes with a corneal perforation, it would be possible, and is possibly safer, to first give a lid block with the eye patched. We are of the opinion that only in very exceptional circumstances should topical anesthesia be considered, and even in those situations, it may be prudent to use parabulbar/subtenon anesthesia once the graft has been anchored with cardinal sutures, restoring the tectonic integrity of the globe. This would provide pain relief and increase the safety of the subsequent steps of surgery. Although we appreciate the efforts of the authors to salvage eyes with a perforation in patients with multiple systemic problems, we are unable to understand the use of this desperate measure in eyes with no perforation. In the article, the authors presented the success rate of completing the surgical procedure using topical anesthesia; however, the pain experienced was only crudely assessed. The visual outcome, the amount of astigmatism, specular studies of the graft, and the visual acuity after keratoplasty were not recorded. We agree that these measures may be secondary outcome measures in eyes with perforated corneal ulcers, where the primary aim of surgery is to restore globe integrity. However, the reporting of such data would be necessary to support the authors’ recommendation that topical anesthesia be considered for routine penetrating keratoplasties performed by experienced surgeons.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?