↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Peribulbar versus retrobulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
Peribulbar versus retrobulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004083.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mahmoud B Alhassan, Fatima Kyari, Henry OD Ejere

Abstract

Cataract is a major cause of blindness worldwide. Unless medically contraindicated, cataract surgery is usually performed under local (regional) anaesthesia. Local anaesthesia involves the blockage of a nerve subserving a given part of the body. It involves infiltration of the area around the nerve with local anaesthetic. The two main approaches in the eye are retrobulbar and peribulbar. There is debate over whether the peribulbar approach provides more effective, safer anaesthesia for cataract surgery than retrobulbar block. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of peribulbar anaesthesia (PB) compared to retrobulbar anaesthesia (RB) on pain scores, ocular akinesia, patient acceptability and ocular and systemic complications. In the previous version of our review, we searched the databases until December 2007. In this updated version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (March 2015); MEDLINE (1960 to March 2015); and EMBASE (1980 to March 2015). We included randomized controlled clinical trials comparing peribulbar anaesthesia and retrobulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgery. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for additional information, study methodology and missing data. We carried out a descriptive narrative of results as the included studies used varied methods for reporting the outcomes. We performed a subgroup analysis for globe akinesia. We included six trials involving 1438 participants. Three of the six trials had adequate sequence generation while all the trials had unclear allocation concealment There was no evidence of any difference in pain perception during surgery with either retrobulbar or peribulbar anaesthesia. Both were largely effective. There was no evidence of any difference in complete akinesia or the need for further injections of local anaesthetic. Conjunctival chemosis was more common after peribulbar block (relative risk (RR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46 to 3.05) and lid haematoma was more common after retrobulbar block (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.88). Retrobulbar haemorrhage was uncommon and occurred only once, in a patient who had a retrobulbar block. There is little to choose between peribulbar and retrobulbar block in terms of anaesthesia and akinesia during surgery measuring acceptability to patients, need for additional injections and development of severe complications. Severe local or systemic complications were rare for both types of block.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 92 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 18%
Other 17 18%
Student > Master 16 17%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 11 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 14 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 July 2015.
All research outputs
#10,374,012
of 17,669,649 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,562
of 11,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,540
of 238,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#224
of 269 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,669,649 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 238,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 269 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.