Topical anaesthesia plus intracameral lidocaine versus topical anaesthesia alone for phacoemulsification cataract surgery in adults (2020)

BACKGROUND: Phacoemulsification cataract surgery is usually performed in adults under local anaesthesia. Topical anaesthesia, which involves instilling anaesthetic drops to the ocular surface prior to and during surgery, has found large acceptance internationally. It is safe and allows for rapid patient turnover and visual recovery. Some surgeons have supplemented topical anaesthesia with intracameral lidocaine, reasoning that this may further reduce intraoperative pain, particularly during surgical stages involving manipulation of intraocular structures and rapid changes in fluid dynamics. This review, originally published in 2006 and updated in 2020, explores the efficacy and safety of using supplementary intracameral lidocaine in phacoemulsification cataract surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether supplementing topical anaesthesia with intracameral lidocaine for phacoemulsification cataract surgery in adults reduces intraoperative and postoperative pain, and to assess differences in participant satisfaction, need for additional intraoperative anaesthesia, surgeon satisfaction, measures of intraocular toxicity, and adverse effects attributable to choice of anaesthesia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS BIREME iAH, and six trial registries on 4 February 2020. We also searched the reference lists of identified studies. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where participants underwent phacoemulsification for age‐related cataract under topical anaesthesia with or without intracameral lidocaine either in two eyes of the same participant, or in different participants. We also included studies that used oral or intravenous sedation in addition to local anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial methodological quality using standard Cochrane procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five new RCTs in this updated review. We included a total of 13 trials in the review, conducted in the UK, the USA, Australia, Italy, Canada, Taiwan, Singapore, India, and Pakistan, and comprising 2388 eyes of 2355 participants (one study was a paired‐eye study with each participant acting as their own control). The age range of participants was 34 to 95 years. We excluded studies that only included low‐risk participants and excluded more difficult operative cases, for example hard lens nuclei or small pupils. We excluded studies assessing only participants with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy. We judged one study as at high risk for selection bias. We assessed five studies as having an unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation and seven studies an unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment. We judged three studies as at high risk of performance bias, as the surgeon was not blinded, and two studies as at unclear risk of bias for this domain. No studies were judged as at high risk for detection bias, but five studies were judged to have an unclear risk of bias for this domain. We judged all 13 included studies to have a low risk of attrition bias and an unclear risk of reporting bias. Data from eight RCTs favoured topical anaesthesia plus intracameral lidocaine 0.5% to 1% over topical anaesthesia alone for reducing intraoperative pain when measured using a 10‐point visual analogue scale, analysed as a continuous outcome. Mean pain score was 0.26 lower in the supplemental intracameral lidocaine group (95% confidence interval (CI) −0.39 to −0.13, 1692 eyes, moderate‐quality evidence). Data from seven RCTs favoured supplemental intracameral lidocaine for reducing intraoperative pain when measured as a dichotomous outcome. The odds ratio of experiencing any pain was 0.40 versus the topical anaesthesia‐only group (95% CI 0.29 to 0.57, 1268 eyes, moderate‐quality evidence). Data from four RCTs did not show any additional benefit on postoperative pain when measured using a 10‐point visual analogue scale (mean difference 0.12 points, 95% CI −0.29 to 0.05, 751 eyes, moderate‐quality evidence). The impact on participant satisfaction was uncertain as only one small study investigated this outcome. The study suggested no difference between groups (mean difference 0.1 points, 95% CI −0.47 to 0.27, 60 eyes, low‐quality evidence). Data from seven RCTs did not demonstrate a difference between groups in the need for additional intraoperative anaesthesia (odds ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.39, 1194 eyes of 1161 participants; low‐quality evidence), although this result is uncertain. A variety of measures were reported relating to possible intraocular toxicity. Data from four RCTs did not demonstrate a difference between groups in mean percentage corneal endothelial cell count change from pre‐ to postoperatively (mean difference 0.89%, 95% CI −1.12% to 2.9%, 254 eyes of 221 participants, moderate‐quality evidence). Synthesis of the evidence from eight RCTs identified no difference in intraoperative adverse events between groups (odds ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.16, 1726 eyes, low‐quality evidence). This result should be interpreted with caution, mainly due to a lack of clear definitions of adverse events, low numbers of events, heterogeneity between studies, and large confidence intervals. Large observational studies may have been more appropriate for looking at this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate‐quality evidence that supplementation of topical anaesthesia with intracameral lidocaine 0.5% to 1% for phacoemulsification cataract surgery in adults reduces participant perception of intraoperative pain. The odds of experiencing any pain (as opposed to no pain) were 60% less for the topical anaesthesia plus intracameral lidocaine group versus the topical anaesthesia‐only group. However, the numerical amplitude of the effect may not be of great clinical significance on the continuous pain score scale. Generally, the pain scores were consistently low for both techniques. We found moderate‐quality evidence that there is no additional benefit of intracameral lidocaine on postoperative pain. There is insufficient evidence to determine the impact on participant satisfaction and need for additional intraoperative anaesthesia due to low‐quality evidence. There is moderate‐quality evidence that intracameral lidocaine supplementation does not increase measures of intraocular toxicity, specifically loss of corneal endothelial cells. There is low‐quality evidence that the incidence of intraoperative adverse events is unchanged with intracameral lidocaine supplementation, but as RCTs are not the optimum medium for looking at this, this result should be interpreted with caution. Further research specifically investigating the adverse effects of intracameral anaesthesia might help to better determine its safety profile. Economic evaluations would also be useful for detailing cost implications.