Combined Topical and Intracameral Anesthesia in Penetrating Keratoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The standard of care for penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) is either retrobulbar or peribulbar anesthesia combined with seventh cranial nerve akinesia or general anesthesia. These methods are known to be associated with rare but potentially serious adverse ocular and systemic events. PURPOSE: To determine the safety and efficacy of combined topical and intracameral anesthesia in addition to intravenous sedation for repeat penetrating keratoplasty (PKP). SETTING: Tertiary-care university hospital. METHODS: In this prospective study, combined topical tetracaine 0.5% and 0.2 cc intracameral 1% lidocaine along with i.v. sedation with midazolam and fentanyl were used for patients undergoing repeat PKP in 15 eyes of 15 selected patients. The indication for surgery was failed corneal graft. Verbal pain scale (VPS, 0-3) was recorded preoperatively, intraoperatively at 3 time-points (after trephination, after placing 8 interrupted sutures, and after placing the running suture), and postoperatively (1 hour postoperatively, overnight pain, and 1 day postoperatively). Patient and surgeon satisfaction were assessed postoperatively using a scale (1-5). After surgery patients were asked for their preferences comparing the current use of topical anesthesia compared with retrobulbar anesthesia used for their initial PKP. RESULTS: The mean intraoperative VPS score was 0.51 +/- 0.32 (range 0-1.33), and the mean postoperative VPS score was 0.47 +/- 0.50 (range 0-1.67). There were no serious intraoperative or postoperative complications. All patients reported high mean satisfaction score of 4.67 +/- 0.49 (range 4-5). The mean satisfaction score reported by the surgeon was 4.47 +/- 0.63 (range 3-5). All patients but 1 (93.3%) preferred combined topical over retrobulbar anesthesia, which they had in their previous surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We found combined topical and intracameral anesthesia to be safe and effective in our selected group of patients undergoing repeat PKP, and it may provide a satisfactory alternative anesthetic modality for patients in whom general, retrobulbar, or peribulbar anesthesia may be contraindicated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".