Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Comparing two eye anesthesia methods in dogs using bupivacaine
By Shilo-Benjamini, Yael et al.·Published in Veterinary ophthalmology·2019·Koret School of Veterinary Medicine·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Retrobulbar vs peribulbar regional anesthesia techniques using bupivacaine in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of six mixed-breed dogs received two different types of eye anesthesia to see which worked better. The first method, retrobulbar anesthesia, was less effective than the second method, peribulbar anesthesia, which provided more reliable pain relief. However, both methods caused some side effects, like temporary swelling and sensitivity issues around the eyes, which usually resolved within a day or two. In some cases, inflammation and corneal ulcers developed but were treated successfully. Overall, peribulbar anesthesia was found to be the better option for eye procedures in dogs.
People also search for: dog eye surgery anesthesia · peribulbar anesthesia side effects · retrobulbar anesthesia for dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of retrobulbar anesthesia (RBA) and peribulbar anesthesia (PBA) in dogs. ANIMAL STUDIED: Six adult mixed-breed dogs (18-24 kg). PROCEDURES: In a randomized, masked, crossover trial with a 10-day washout period, each dog was sedated with intravenously administered dexmedetomidine and administered 0.5% bupivacaine:iopamidol (4:1) as RBA (2 mL via a ventrolateral site) or PBA (5 mL divided equally between ventrolateral and dorsomedial sites). The contralateral eye acted as control. Injectate distribution was evaluated by computed tomography. Following intramuscularly administered atipamezole, corneal and periocular skin sensation, intraocular pressure (IOP), and ocular reflexes, and appearance were evaluated for 24 hours. Comparisons were performed with mixed-effects linear regression (IOP) or the exact Wilcoxon signed rank test (scores). Significance was set at P ≤ .05. RESULTS: Injectate distribution was intraconal in 2/6 RBA- and 4/6 PBA-injected eyes. Eyes undergoing PBA had significantly reduced lateral, ventral, and dorsal periocular skin sensation for 2-3 hours, and significantly reduced corneal sensitivity for 4 hours, relative to control eyes. Chemosis and exophthalmos occurred in 33%-40% of eyes undergoing RBA and 83%-100% eyes undergoing PBA but resolved within 14 hours. Anterior uveitis developed in 2/6 and 1/6 eyes of RBA and PBA, respectively, of them corneal ulcer developed in one eye of each treatment. Both resolved 1-3 days following medical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Peribulbar injection produced notable anesthesia more reliably than did retrobulbar injection. Both techniques may produce adverse effects, although the uveitis/ulcer could have resulted from the contrast agent used.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29762893/