↓ 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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 120 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 16%
Other 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 34 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 40 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 September 2023.
All research outputs
#3,214,057
of 25,383,344 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,961
of 12,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,040
of 276,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#136
of 267 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,344 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 276,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 267 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.