Patient Comfort with Various Local Infiltration Anesthetics for Minor Oculoplastic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
patients
local anesthetics
prilocaine with felypressin, lidocaine with epinephrine
injection pain
Abstract
Although local anesthetics have been extensively studied, limited evidence is available regarding the optimal solution for maximizing patient comfort in minor oculoplastic procedures. To determine the optimal anesthetic solution for local infiltration in minor oculoplastic surgeries to maximize patient comfort. This systematic review with network meta-analysis of prospective studies was conducted to understand the efficacy of different local anesthetics in combination to maximize patient comfort. The study was designed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The population comprised patients receiving local infiltration anesthesia in minor oculoplastic surgeries. Various anesthetics with adjuvants were compared with respect to injection pain, operative bleeding, and complications. Random-effects model was performed. The primary outcome of injection pain was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) or a preference question (which intervention was the least painful). Other outcomes were operative bleeding and complications, which were evaluated with a similar preference question. Eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 521 patients (917 eyes) were included. The network meta-analysis revealed that "bicarbonate-buffered lidocaine with epinephrine" led to a significant decrease in injection pain (preference question) compared to "prilocaine with felypressin" and "lidocaine with epinephrine," whereas no significant differences were detected in the analysis of injection pain measured using the VAS. "Bicarbonate-buffered lidocaine with epinephrine" may be the optimal anesthetic solution for local infiltration in minor oculoplastic surgeries due to reduced injection pain, operative bleeding, and postoperative swelling. However, this should be interpreted cautiously as the confidence in the evidence was very low. CRD42021260332 (PROSPERO).