Abstract Background: Elderly patients may present with visual function impairment after surgery, which may increase the incidence of postoperative delirium and falls and decrease their quality of life. The aim of this study was to assess visual function in elderly patients after long-duration nonocular surgery to determine the incidence and risk factors for visual function impairment after surgery. Methods: This prospective and observational study included patients aged between 60 and 80 years who had been scheduled for elective non-ocular surgery expected to last longer than 120 minutes under general anaesthesia. Ocular examinations were performed before surgery, on post-operative day 3 and on post-operative day 21 and consisted of a LogMAR-Snellen chart test, a Jager chart test, biomicroscopy, optical tonometry, ocular motility assessment and fundoscopy. Baseline characteristics of all patients as well as intraoperative and postoperative data were collected. Results: A total of 107 patients were included in the final analysis. Visual function impairment was diagnosed in 21 patients (19.6%) at POD 3. Of those, 7 patients (6.5%) still presented with visual changes at POD 21. On POD 3, compared with that at baseline, visual acuity assessed by the Snellen chart test had decreased in these patients. Significant differences regarding refraction tests and intraocular pressure measures were also found. Multivariable analysis identified diabetes mellitus, duration of surgery, hypotension during anaesthesia induction, lower peripheral oxygen saturation at the end of the procedure and body mass index as independent risk factors for postoperative visual impairment. Conclusion: In elderly patients undergoing long-duration non-ocular procedures under general anaesthesia, the incidence of visual function impairment was considerably high. Most patients recovered to baseline visual function, but clinically significant visual changes may still be present 3 weeks after surgery. Obesity, diabetes mellitus, and the duration of surgical and anaesthetic techniques appear to increase the risk of visual impairment after surgery.

OBJETIVO: Comparar a dor causada pela injeção de solução de lidocaína 2% e epinefrina 1:100.000 com a injeção de solução de lidocaína 2% e epinefrina 1:100.000 tamponada com bicarbonato sódico 8,4% na proporção de 9:1 durante a realização de anestesia local em pacientes a serem submetidos a blefaroplastia superior bilateral. MÉTODOS: Estudo prospectivo duplo-cego, onde 25 pacientes foram submetidos a blefaroplastia superior, sob anestesia local. Cada pálpebra recebia uma das duas soluções anestésicas modificadas definidas por sorteio realizado por um dos pesquisadores que não participava do procedimento cirúrgico. Foram observadas as alterações na frequência cardíaca, pressão arterial sistêmica e saturação de oxigênio, comparadas aos índices de base do próprio paciente, obtidas previamente no início do procedimento. Ao término das aplicações, solicitava-se ao paciente uma nota (de 0 a 4) referente a dor. RESULTADOS: Apenas dois parâmetros (frequência cardíaca e saturação de O2) apresentaram diferença estatisticamente significativa durante a aplicação das duas soluções. CONCLUSÃO: Não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa entre a sensação de dor causada pela injeção de solução de lidocaína 2% e epinefrina 1:100.000 com a aplicação da mesma solução tamponada com bicarbonato sódico 8,4% na proporção de 9:1, em pacientes submetidos a blefaroplastia superior bilateral.

PURPOSE: To compare pain on injection of two modified anesthetic lidocaine solutions for use in upper blepharoplasty: 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, and 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine buffered 9:1 with 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. METHODS: In this prospective, double-masked study, 25 consecutive patients undergoing upper blepharoplasty were submitted to the anesthesic procedure. Each eyelid received one of two modified lidocaine solutions. Heart rate, systemic arterial pressure and oxygen saturation level were obtained before, during and after injection of two different anesthetic solutions. Patients used a 4-point scale to rate the perceived pain on injection. RESULTS: All parameters were statistically analyzed and there was a significant difference in heart rate and oxygen saturation level. CONCLUSION: Pain on injection of eyelid anesthesia does not differ significantly with either buffered or unmodified lidocaine solutions.