Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (10)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Allman, K. G.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, I. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Allman, K. G.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, I. H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2001, Vol. 87, No. 4 584-587
© 2001 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Clinical Investigations

Comparison of articaine and bupivacaine/lidocaine for single medial canthus peribulbar anaesthesia

K. G. Allman1, J. G. McFadyen1, J. Armstrong1, G. D. Sturrock2 and I. H. Wilson1

1Department of Anaesthesia and 2West of England Eye Unit, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Barrack Road, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK*Corresponding author

In a single-centre, randomized, double-blind study, we compared the efficacy of 2% articaine with that of a mixture of 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine for peribulbar anaesthesia in cataract surgery, using a single medial canthus injection technique. Eighty-two patients were allocated randomly to receive 7–9 ml of a mixture of 0.5% bupivacaine and 2% lidocaine or an equal volume of 2% articaine with 1:200 000 epinephrine. Hyaluronidase 30 iu ml–1 was added to both solutions. The degree of akinesia was scored 1, 5 and 10 min after the block, at the end of surgery and at discharge from the day case unit. Primary outcome measures were the difference in ocular movement scores 5 min after block and the need for supplementary inferolateral injections. There was greater akinesia in the articaine group at 5 min (P=0.01). Ten patients (24%) in the articaine group and 21 patients (51%) in the bupivacaine/lidocaine group required a supplementary injection (P=0.02). The mean (SD) volume of local anaesthetic required to achieve adequate block for surgery was 9.7 (2.1) ml in the articaine group and 11.0 (2.2) ml in the bupivacaine/lidocaine group (P=0.01). There was a faster offset of akinesia after surgery in the articaine group (P=0.01). There were no differences between groups in the incidence of reported pain or of minor complications. In our study, 2% articaine with 1:200 000 epinephrine was safe and efficacious for single medial canthus peribulbar anaesthesia.

Br J Anaesth 2001; 87: 584–7


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
P. Gouws, P. Galloway, J. Jacob, W. English, and K. G. Allman
Comparison of articaine and bupivacaine/lidocaine for sub-Tenon's anaesthesia in cataract extraction
Br. J. Anaesth., February 1, 2004; 92(2): 228 - 230.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
M. Ozdemir, G. Ozdemir, B. Zencirci, and H. Oksuz
Articaine versus lidocaine plus bupivacaine for peribulbar anaesthesia in cataract surgery
Br. J. Anaesth., February 1, 2004; 92(2): 231 - 234.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
K. G. Allman, L. L. Barker, G. C. Werrett, P. Gouws, G. D. Sturrock, and I. H. Wilson
Comparison of articaine and bupivacaine/lidocaine for peribulbar anaesthesia by inferotemporal injection
Br. J. Anaesth., May 1, 2002; 88(5): 676 - 678.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.