April 2010
Volume 51, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2010
Patient Assessment of Topical Anesthetic Effectiveness for Intravitreal Injections
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • M. J. Davis
    Department of Ophthalmology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
  • J. S. Pollack
    Department of Ophthalmology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  M.J. Davis, None; J.S. Pollack, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2010, Vol.51, 5126. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      M. J. Davis, J. S. Pollack; Patient Assessment of Topical Anesthetic Effectiveness for Intravitreal Injections. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2010;51(13):5126.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To determine whether patients undergoing intravitreal injection perceive a difference in anesthetic effect between topical proparacaine HCL 0.5%, proparacaine HCL 0.5% + topical 4% lidocaine solution, or 3.5% lidocaine gel, and whether this difference impacts their assessment of their overall injection experience.

Methods: : In this prospective study, 120 sequential patients undergoing 30 and 33 Gauge intravitreal injections were randomly assigned to receive either: proparacaine HCL 0.5% (Group 1), proparacaine HCL 0.5% + 4% lidocaine liquid drops (Group 2); or 3.5% lidocaine gel (Group 3) as topical anesthetic prior to injection. All procedures utilized a lid speculum and 5% povidone iodine. Approximately 10 seconds after injection, patients graded pain associated with the lid speculum, the needle, and with burning sensation on a pain scale of 0 to 10, with 0 representing no pain and 10 representing the patient’s worst imaginable pain. They also graded their overall injection procedure experience as Excellent, Very Good, Fair, Poor, or Awful.

Results: : Each group contained 40 (33.3%) patients. Ninety-eight (81.7%) patients had an injection with a 30-gauge needle, while 22 (18.3%) had an injection with a 32-gauge needle. The average [range] lid speculum pain score for Group 1 was 0.85 [0-4], Group 2 was 0.50 [0-4], and Group 3 was 0.65 [0-4] (p=0.32). The average [range] needle pain score for Group 1 was 1.78 [0-7], Group 2 was 1.75 [0-6], and Group 3 was 1.48 [0-7] (p=0.38). The average [range] burning pain score for Group 1 was 1.45 [0-6], Group 2 was 1.58 [0-6], and Group 3 was 1.13 [0-6] (p=0.23). Overall satisfaction was rated as Excellent or Very Good in 95% of Group 1 patients, 97.5% of Group 2 patients, and 92.5% of Group 3 patients (p=0.64).

Conclusions: : Proparacaine, proparacaine + 4% lidocaine drops, and 3.5% lidocaine gel appear to be equally effective for pain control during intravitreal injections. There is high patient satisfaction with all three anesthetics. Proparacaine drops alone appear to be an efficient and cost-effective alternative to both 3.5% lidocaine gel and combined proparacaine + 4% lidocaine solution.

Keywords: injection 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.