Author, date and country | Patient group | Study type (level of evidence) | Outcomes | Key results | Study Weaknesses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hamilton R et al. 1998. UK. | 40 patients for routine corneal phacoemulsification 20 received topical 0.5% Proxymetacaine 20 received topical 1% Amethocaine | Prospective study | Mean post-instillation pain score (scale 0-10) | Proxymetacaine 0.25, Amethocaine 2.70, (p<0.01) | Small sample size with no power calculation No details of randomisation Not blinded to investigators |
Mean intra-operative pain score (scale 0-10) | Proxymetacaine 0.25, Amethocaine 0.25, (Not clinically significant) | ||||
Mean pain score 2 hours after operation (scale 0-10) | Proxymetacaine 0.05, Amethocaine 0.15, (Not clinically significant) | ||||
Bartfield JM et al. 1994. USA. | 24 healthy adult volunteers 0.5% Proparacaine in one eye 0.5% Tetracaine in other eye | Prospective, randomised, double-masked clinical trial | Mean pain score after instillation (Visual analog pain scale of 0-100mm) | Proparacaine 2mm, Tetracaine 26mm, (p<0.0002) | Power calculation showed 24 patient are adequate, but only 23 patients used for data analysis Depth of anaesthesia not evaluated |
Duration of anaesthesia (Minutes to return of corneal blink reflex) | Proparacaine 10.7min, Tetracaine 9.4min, (p=0.0001) | ||||
Lawrenson JG et al. 1998. UK. | 14 healthy male volunteers 2 sessions with installation of 0.4% Benoxinate, 0.5% Amethocaine, 0.5% Proxymetacaine and 0.9% Normal Saline consecutively in eyes | Double-masked crossover trial | Mean discomfort rating after instillation (Linear 10 point arbitrary comfort scale) | Proxymetacaine 2.8, Benoxinate 6.1, Amethocaine 5.1, Normal Saline 0.9, (Proxymetacaine vs Benoxinate p<0.001, Proxymetacaine vs Amethocaine p<0.01, Benoxinate vs Amethocaine not significant) | Small sample size with no power calculation |
Percentage of patients achieving total anaesthesia 1 minute post-instillation (Measured with Cochet-Bonnet anaesthesiometer) | Proxymetacaine 100%, Benoxinate 100%, Amethocaine 100% | ||||
Shafi T et al. 1998. UK. | 53 consecutive patients requiring tonometry at ophthalmic outpatient department 0.5% Proxymetacaine in one eye 0.5% Amethocaine in other eye | Randomised, masked, double-blind, prospective study | Mean duration of stinging | Proxymetacaine 3.2 seconds, Amethocaine 22.1 seconds, (p<0.001) | Possible incorrect value for mean descriptive discomfort score of Amethocaine |
Mean descriptive discomfort score (0-4) | Proxymetacaine 2.6, Amethocaine 14.2, (p=0.01) | ||||
Mean linear analogue discomfort score (0-100mm) | Proxymetacaine 5.8, Amethocaine 35.6, (p<0.001) | ||||
Successful tonometry as measure of adequate anaesthesia | Proxymetacaine 93%, Amethocaine 98%, (Not statistically significant with p=0.08) |