Abstract
Purpose To investigate the value of eye padding following uncomplicated phacoemulsification under peribulbar anaesthesia.
Methods A prospective randomised controlled study was conducted to compare the effect of a conventional eye pad and shield with that of a clear eye shield applied without a pad in 83 patients undergoing routine phacoemulsification under peribulbar anaesthesia without lid block. The primary outcome measures were corneal fluorescein staining, discomfort, diplopia and mobility.
Results Moderate or severe corneal fluorescein staining on the first post-operative day was significantly more common in the pad and shield group (39%) than in the clear shield group (19%) (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in post-operative pain as measured either by visual analogue scale or by categorical pain scale. Forty per cent of the clear shield group reported transient postoperative diplopia during the immediate postoperative period compared with 7% of the pad and shield group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in reported mobility between the two groups.
Conclusions Following phacoemulsification under peribulbar anaesthesia, the use of a gauze eye pad is associated with greater corneal fluorescein staining than a clear plastic shield without pad and offers no reduction in discomfort. A clear shield protects the globe against direct trauma, is associated with reduced moderate to severe corneal staining and facilitates vision in the early postoperative period. Transient diplopia reported by some patients given a clear shield is not disabling and would not be expected to occur in patients with one seeing eye. The use of a clear shield alone is a safe alternative to eye padding and offers important advantages in patients with one seeing eye.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
References
Nishida T, Yagi J, Fukuda M, Kusube T, Otori T . Spontaneous persistent epithelial defects after cataract surgery. Cornea 1987;6:32–7.
Donzis PB, Mondino BJ . Management of non-infectious corneal ulcers. Surv Ophthalmol 1987;32:94–110.
Hwang DG, Smith RE . Corneal complications of cataract surgery [review]. Refract Corn Surg 1991;7:77–80.
Zabel RW, Mintsioulis G, MacDonald IM, Valberg J, Tuft SJ . Corneal toxic changes after cataract extraction. Can J Ophthalmol 1989;24:311–6.
Kirkpatrick JN, Hoh HB, Cook SD . No eye pad for corneal abrasion. Eye 1993;7:468–71.
Kaiser PK . Corneal Abrasion Patching Study Group. A comparison of pressure patching versus no patching for corneal abrasions due to trauma or foreign body removal. Ophthalmology 1995;102:1936–42.
Patterson J, Fetzer D, Krall J, Wright E, Heller M . Eye patch treatment for the pain of corneal abrasion. Southern Med J 1996;89:227–9.
Hulbert MF . Efficacy of eyepad in corneal healing after corneal foreign body removal. Lancet 1991;337:643.
Fujishima H, Yagi Y, Toda I, Shimazaki J, Tsubota K . Increased comfort and decreased inflammation of the eye by cooling after cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 1995;119:301–6.
Ellingham RB, Waldock A, Harrad RA . Visual disturbance of the uncovered eye in patients wearing an eye patch. Eye 1993;7:775–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bainbridge, J., Smith, J., Reddy, G. et al. Is eye padding routinely necessary after uncomplicated phacoemulsification?. Eye 12, 637–640 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1998.160
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1998.160