ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2024
Peribulbar vs. incisionless sub-Tenon's blocks: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOphthalmic procedures are increasingly being performed under regional anesthesia techniques such as peribulbar and incisionless sub-Tenon's blocks. The aim is to compare peribulbar block with incisionless sub-Tenon's block in terms of perioperative complications in patients who underwent cataract and vitreoretinal surgeries.
methodsThe patients who underwent cataract or vitroretinal surgery under peribulbar block or incisionless sub-Tenon's block were included in the study. Two groups were compared each other in terms of anesthesia-related complications.
resultsA total of 125 patients [peribulbar block (N = 48) and incisionless sub-Tenon's block (N = 77)] were included in the study. All basic characteristics and perioperative hemodynamic parameters were similar between the groups. One (0.8%) patient in the peribulbar block developed retrobulbar hemorrhage, whereas there was no major complication in the incisionless sub-Tenon's group (P = 0.389). At 15th minutes after block and at the end of the operation, minor complications including chemosis and subconjunctival hemorrhage were observed significantly lower in the peribulbar block group in comparison to the incisionless sub-Tenon's block group (P < 0.05).
conclusionsMinor complications including subconjunctival haemorrhage and chemosis were more common in the incisionless sub-Tenon's block; however, this difference was statistically balanced on the first postoperative day. One patient in the peribulbar block developed retrobulbar hemorrhage, whereas there was no major complication in the incisionless sub-Tenon's block. According to those results, incisionless sub-Tenon's block seems to be a safe and reliable alternative for ophthalmic procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.