| Title: |
Efficacy of subconjunctival anesthesia with lignocaine vs topical paracaine with intracameral lignocaine in small incision cataract surgery: A Comparative Clinical Study. |
| Authors: |
Modi, Sarika; gadhwal, mahavir Singh; Meena, Jyoti |
| Source: |
European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine; Jan2026, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p447-451, 5p |
| Subject Terms: |
CATARACT surgery; LIDOCAINE; LOCAL anesthetics; CONDUCTION anesthesia; PATIENT satisfaction; ANESTHETICS; TREATMENT effectiveness; PAIN management |
| Abstract: |
Background: Small incision cataract surgery (SICS) is widely performed in developing countries. Anesthesia plays a crucial role in patient comfort, surgical ease, and safety. Subconjunctival lignocaine and topical paracaine supplemented with intracameral lignocaine are commonly used anesthesia techniques, but comparative evidence remains limited. Aim: To compare the efficacy, patient comfort, intraoperative pain control, surgical conditions, and complications of subconjunctival lignocaine versus topical paracaine with intracameral lignocaine in patients undergoing SICS. Materials and Methods: This prospective comparative clinical study included 120 patients undergoing SICS, randomly allocated into two groups. Group A received subconjunctival lignocaine anesthesia, while Group B received topical paracaine with intracameral lignocaine. Pain scores were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Surgeon comfort, need for supplemental anesthesia, intraoperative complications, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Results: Mean intraoperative pain scores were significantly lower in Group A compared to Group B (p < 0.05). Surgeon comfort was better in Group A, whereas Group B demonstrated faster visual recovery and reduced chemosis. No significant difference was observed in postoperative complications between the groups. Conclusion: Subconjunctival lignocaine provides superior intraoperative analgesia and surgical comfort, while topical paracaine with intracameral lignocaine offers a needle-free alternative with acceptable pain control and faster postoperative recovery. Both techniques are safe and effective for SICS, with selection depending on patient and surgeon preference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| : |
Copyright of European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine is the property of Healthcare Bulletin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| Database: |
Complementary Index |