{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017123287671232876, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017123287671232876, 'mean_word_length': 5.796511627906977, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A comparison of peribulbar and retrobulbar anesthesia for vitreoretinal surgical procedures.

OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy of retrobulbar and peribulbar anesthetic techniques for vitreoretinal surgical procedures.


DESIGN
Prospective, randomized, double-blind study.


SETTING
A large university teaching hospital.


PARTICIPANTS
One hundred sixteen consecutive patients who were scheduled for vitreoretinal surgical procedures.


METHODS
Patients who were undergoing vitreoretinal surgical procedures were divided into four separate groups, depending on the type of surgical procedure planned. Equal numbers of patients in each group of patients who were undergoing a surgical procedure were randomly assigned to either the retrobulbar or peribulbar block-treated group. Anesthesia, akinesia, need for block supplementation, and patient acceptance were measured.


RESULTS
Both retrobulbar and peribulbar anesthetic techniques provided equal levels of akinesia and analgesia, with each requiring intraoperative supplementation in 32%.


CONCLUSION
Peribulbar block can be expeditiously and efficiently used for a full range of vitreoretinal surgical procedures.