RODRIGO FRANCA DE ESPINDOLA
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Instituto Central, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
LIM/33 - Laboratório de Oftalmologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
LIM/33 - Laboratório de Oftalmologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
2 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 2 de 2
- Ocular risk management in patients undergoing general anesthesia: an analysis of 39,431 surgeries(2015) KARA-JUNIOR, Newton; ESPINDOLA, Rodrigo Franca de; VALVERDE FILHO, Joao; ROSA, Christiane Pellegrino; OTTOBONI, Andre; SILVA, Enis DonizeteOBJECTIVE: This study sought to describe and analyze ocular findings associated with nonocular surgery in patients who underwent general anesthesia. METHODS: The authors retrospectively collected a series of 39,431 surgeries using standardized data forms. RESULTS: Ocular findings were reported in 9 cases (2.3: 10,000), which involved patients with a mean age of 58.9 +/- 19.5 years. These cases involved patients classified as ASA I (33%), ASA II (55%) or ASA III (11%). General anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil was used in 4 cases, balanced general anesthesia was used in 4 cases, and regional block was used in combination with balanced general anesthesia in one case. Five patients (55%) underwent surgery in the supine position, one patient (11%) underwent surgery in the lithotomy position, two patients (22%) underwent surgery in the prone position, and one patient (11%) underwent surgery in the lateral position. Ocular hyperemia was detected in most (77%) of the 9 cases with ocular findings; pain/burning of the eyes, visual impairment, eye discharge and photophobia were observed in 55%, 11%, 11% and 11%, respectively, of these 9 cases. No cases involved permanent ocular injury or vision loss. CONCLUSION: Ophthalmological findings after surgeries were uncommon, and most of the included patients were relatively healthy. Minor complications, such as dehydration or superficial ocular trauma, should be prevented by following systematic protocols that provide appropriate ocular occlusion with a lubricating ointment and protect the eye with an acrylic occluder. These procedures will refine the quality of anesthesia services and avoid discomfort among patients, surgeons and anesthesia staff.
- A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study(2012) ESPINDOLA, Rodrigo F.; CASTRO, Emerson F. S.; SANTHIAGO, Marcony R.; KARA-JUNIOR, NewtonOBJECTIVE: This study sought to compare the effects and outcomes of two ophthalmic viscosurgical devices, 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate and 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, during phacoemulsification. METHODS: This prospective, randomized clinical trial comprised 78 eyes (39 patients) that received phacoemulsification performed by the same surgeon using a standardized technique. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate or 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose on the first eye. The other eye was treated later and received the other viscoelastic agent. Preoperative and postoperative examinations (5, 24 and 48 hours; 7 and 14 days; 3 and 6 months) included measurements of the total volume of the ophthalmic viscosurgical device, ultrasound and washout times to completely remove the ophthalmic viscosurgical device, intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness and best-corrected visual acuity. The corneal endothelial cell count was measured at baseline and at six months postoperatively. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01387620. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of cataract density or ultrasound time. However, it took longer to remove 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose than 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate, and the amount of viscoelastic material used was greater in the 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose group. In addition, the best-corrected visual acuity was significantly better in the hyaluronic acid/chondroitin sulfate group, but this preferable outcome was only observed at 24 hours after the operation. There were no statistically significant differences between the two ophthalmic viscosurgical devices regarding the central corneal thickness or intraocular pressure measurements at any point in time. The corneal endothelial cell count was significantly higher in the hyaluronic acid/chondroitin sulfate group. CONCLUSION: The ophthalmic viscosurgical device consisting of 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate was more efficient during phacoemulsification and was easier to remove after IOL implantation than 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose. In addition, the corneal endothelial cell count was significantly higher following the use of hyaluronic acid/chondroitin sulfate than with hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, which promoted an improved level of corneal endothelium protection.