This study compares the clinical features and physician selection of either Regional Anesthesia (peribulbar or retrobulbar block) with Monitored Anesthesia Care (RA-MAC) or General Anesthesia (GA) for open globe injury repair.
A non-randomized, comparative, retrospective case series at a University Referral Center.
All adult repairable open globe injuries receiving primary repair between January 1st, 2004 and December 31st, 2014 (11 years). Exclusion criteria were patients less than 18 years of age and those treated with primary enucleation.
Data was gathered via retrospective chart review.
Data collected from each patient was age, gender, injury type, location, length of wound, presenting visual acuity, classification of anesthesia used, duration of the procedure performed, months of clinical follow-up, and final visual acuity.
During the 11 years study period, 448 patients were identified who had open globe injuries with documented information on zone of injury. Globe injury repair was performed using RA-MAC in 351/448 (78%) patients and general anesthesia in 97/448 (22%) patients. Zone 1, 2 and 3 injuries were recorded in 241, 135, and 72 patients respectively. The rates in specific zones, of RA-MAC versus GA were as follows: Zone 1 - 213/241 (88%) vs 28/241 (12%), Zone 2 - 104/135 (77%) vs 31/135 (23%) and Zone 3 - 34/72 (47%) vs 38/72 (53%). Open globe injuries repaired under RA-MAC had significantly shorter wound length (p<0.001), more anterior wound location (p<0.001) and shorter operative times (p<0.001). RA-MAC cases also had a better presenting and final visual acuity (p<0.001). Neither class of anesthesia conferred a greater visual acuity improvement (p=0.06). The use of GA did not cause any delay in the time elapsed from injury until surgical repair (p=0.74).
RA-MAC is a reasonable alternative to GA for the repair of open globe injuries in selected adult patients. RA-MAC was selected more often for Zone 1 and Zone 2 injuries. For eyes with Zone 3 injuries, there are equal selection ratio for RA-MAC and GA.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 February 2017.
All research outputs
#22,883,262
of 28,010,730 outputs
Outputs from Ophthalmology Retina
#480
of 682 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,875
of 427,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ophthalmology Retina
#15
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,010,730 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 682 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
