Anesthetic management of preschool children with penetrating eye injuries: postal survey of pediatric anesthetists and review of the available evidence
JOCHEN SEIDEL MD FRCA
Department of Anaesthesia, Sheffield Children's Hospital, Western Bank, Sheffield, UK
Search for more papers by this authorTERESA Dorman MbChB FRCA MEd
Department of Anaesthesia, Sheffield Children's Hospital, Western Bank, Sheffield, UK
Search for more papers by this authorJOCHEN SEIDEL MD FRCA
Department of Anaesthesia, Sheffield Children's Hospital, Western Bank, Sheffield, UK
Search for more papers by this authorTERESA Dorman MbChB FRCA MEd
Department of Anaesthesia, Sheffield Children's Hospital, Western Bank, Sheffield, UK
Search for more papers by this authorSummary
Background : Pediatric anesthetists were surveyed regarding their anesthesia management of a screaming child with a penetrating eye injury. The results are reviewed in relation to the available evidence in the literature.
Methods : A postal survey was sent to all the members of the APA living in the UK. Seven clinical questions were asked regarding the management of penetrating eye injury and two questions regarding seniority and the number of cases seen.
Results : Of the 318 questionnaires sent out 238 were evaluated. Of the responders indicating the number of cases seen, 21.2% had never seen a single case, 55.1% had seen <5, 17.8% had seen 5–10, and 5.9% had seen >10 cases. Suxamethonium was used more often by respondents who had handled more cases; 42.9% of those doing >10 compared with 10% of those doing less than five cases. Senior anesthetists preferred the use of techniques without relaxants and to extubate children under deep anesthesia.
Conclusions : Few people have extensive experience managing a penetrating eye injury in a child. A variety of anesthesia techniques are used for induction with anesthetists avoiding suxamethonium, despite there being little evidence in the literature that the use of suxamethonium is harmful to the open globe.
References
- 1 Hoffmann H, Holzer H, Bock J et al. Die Wirkung von Muskelrelaxantien auf den intraokularen Druck. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilk 1953; 123: 1–16.
- 2 Pandey K, Badola RP, Kumar S. Time course of intraocular hypertension produced by suxamethonium. Br J Anaesth 1972; 44: 191–195.
- 3 Cunningham AJ, Barry P. Intraocular pressure physiology and implications for anaesthetic management. Can Anaesth Soc J 1986; 33: 195–208.
- 4 Green K, Luxenburg MN. Consequences of eyelid squeezing on intraocular pressure. Am J Ophthalmol 1979; 88: 1072–1077.
- 5
Macri FJ.
Vascular pressure relationship and intraocular pressure.
Arch Ophthalmol
1961; 65: 165–170.
10.1001/archopht.1961.01840020573021 Google Scholar
- 6 Coleman DJ, Trokel S. Direct recorded intraocular pressure variations in a human subject. Arch Ophthalmol 1969; 82: 637–640.
- 7 Perkins ES. Hand held applanation tonometer. Br J Ophthalmol 1965; 49: 591–593.
- 8 Schiotz HJ. Tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol 1925; 9: 145–148.
- 9 Cook JH. The effect of suxamethonium on intraocular pressure. Anaesthesia 1981; 36: 359–365.
- 10 Miller JE. Cellular organization of rhesus extraocular muscle. Invest Ophthalmol 1967; 6: 18–39.
- 11 Self WG, Ellis P. The effect of general anaesthetic agents on intraocular pressure. Surv Ophthalmol 1977; 21: 494–499.
- 12 Bjork A, Halladin M, Wahlin A. Enophthalmos elicited by succinylcholine. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1957; 1: 41–53.
- 13 Lincoff HA, Breinin GM, Devoe AG. The effect of succinylcholine on the extraocular muscles. Am J Ophthalmol 1957; 43: 440–444.
- 14 Dillon JB, Sabawala P, Taylor DB et al. Action of succinylcholine and intraocular pressure. Anesthesiology 1957; 18: 44–49.
- 15 Rich AL, Witherspoon CD, Morris RE et al. Use of nondepolarizing anesthetic agents in penetrating ocular injuries (letter). Anesthesiology 1986; 65: 108–109.
- 16 Libonati MM, Leahy J, Ellisin N. The use of succinylcholine in open eye surgery. Anesthesiology 1985; 62: 637–640.
- 17 Donlon JV. Succinylcholine and open eye injuries. Anesthesiology 1986; 65: 526–527.
- 18 Moreno RJ, Kloess P, Carlson DW. Effect of succinylcholine on the intraocular contents of open globes. Ophthalmology 1991; 98: 636–638.
- 19 Wang ML, Seiff SR, Drasner K. A comparison of visual outcome in open-globe repair: succinylcholine with d-tubocurarine vs nondepolarizing agents. Ophthalmic Surg 1992; 23: 746–751.
- 20 Zimmerman AA, Funk KJ, Tidwell JL. Propofol and alfentanil prevent the increase in intraocular pressure caused by succinylcholine and endotracheal intubation during a rapid sequence induction of anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1996; 83: 814–817.
- 21 Eti Z, Yayci A, Umuroğlu T et al. The effect of propofol and alfentanil on the increase in intraocular pressure due to succinylcholine and intubation. Eur J Ophthalmol 2000; 10: 105–109.
- 22 Ng HP, Chen FG, Yeong SM et al. Effect of remifentanil compared with fentanyl on intraocular pressure after succinylcholine and tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth 2000; 85: 785–787.
- 23 Joshi C, Bruce DL. Thiopental and succinylcholine: action on intraocular pressure. Anesth Analg 1975; 54: 471–475.
- 24 Sweeney J, Underhill S, Dowd T et al. Modification by fentanyl and alfentanil of the intraocular pressure response to suxamethonium and intubation. Br J Anaesth 1989; 63: 688–691.
- 25 Vinik HR. Intraocular pressure changes during rapid sequence induction and intubation: a comparison of rocuronium, atracurium and succinylcholine. J Clin Anesth 1999; 11: 95–100.
- 26 Alexander R, Hill R, Lipham WJ et al. Remifentanil prevents an increase in intraocular pressure after succinylcholine and tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth 1998; 81: 606–607.
- 27 Mitra S, Gombar KK, Gombar S. The effect of rocuronium on intraocular pressure: a comparison with succinylcholine (letter). Eur J Anaesthesiol 2001; 18: 836–838.
- 28 Vachon CA, Warner DO, Bacon DR. Succinylcholine and the open globe. Anesthesiology 2003; 99: 220–223.
- 29 Lee JA. A Synopsis of Anaesthesia, 5th edn. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1964: 515.
- 30 Giesecke AH. Anesthesia for trauma surgery. In: RD Miller, ed. Anesthesia, 1st edn. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1981: 1261.
- 31 Donlon JV. Anesthesia for eye, ear, nose and throat surgery. In: RD Miller, ed. Anesthesia, 2nd edn. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1986: 1855–1856.
- 32 Donlon JV. Anesthesia for eye, ear and throat surgery. In RD Miller, ed. Anesthesia, 5th edn. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2000: 2178–2179.
- 33 Sumner E, Hatch DJ. Paediatric Anaesthesia, 2nd edn. London: Hodder & Stoughton Educational, 2000: 411–413.
- 34 Steward DJ. Manual of Pediatric Anesthesia, 4th edn. New York: Churchill & Livingstone, 1995: 219–220.
- 35 Johnson RW, Forrest FC. LA and GA for Ophthalmic Surgery, 1st edn. Oxford: Butterworth & Heinemann, 1994: 175.
- 36 De Juan E Jr Sternberg P Jr, Michels RG. Penetrating ocular injuries: types of injuries and visual results. Ophthalmology 1983; 90: 1318–1322.
- 37 Thompson JT, Parver LM, Enger CL et al. For the national Eye Trauma System. Infectious endophthalmitis after penetrating injuries with retained intraocular foreign bodies: National Eye Trauma System. Ophthalmology 1993; 100: 1468–1474.
- 38 Duch-Samper AM, Chaqués-Alepuz V, Menezo JL et al. Endophthalmitis following open-globe injuries. Curr Opinion Ophthalmol 1998; 9: 59–65.
- 39 Duch-Samper AM, Menezo JL, Hurtado-Sarrió M. Endophthalmitis following penetrating eye injuries. Acta Ophthalm Scand 1997; 75: 104–106.
- 40 Thompson WS, Rubsamen PE, Schiffman J et al. Endophthalmitis after penetrating ocular trauma: risk factors and visual acuity outcomes. Ophthalmology 1995; 102: 1696–1701.
- 41 Sabaci G, Bayer A, Mutlu FM et al. Endophthalmitis after deadly-weapon-related open-globe injuries: risk factors, value of prophylactic antibiotics and visual outcomes. Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 133: 62–69.
- 42 Alfaro DV, Roth DB, Laughlin RM et al. Paediatric post-traumatic endophthalmitis. Br J Ophthalmol 1995; 79: 888–891.
- 43 Reynolds DS, Flynn HW. Endophthalmitis after penetrating ocular trauma. Curr Opinion Ophthalmol 1997; 8: 32–38.
- 44 Okhravi N, Towler HMA, Hykin P et al. Assessment of a standard treatment protocol on visual outcome following presumed bacterial endophthalmitis. Br J Ophthalmol 1997; 81: 719–725.
Citing Literature
