Literature DB >> 22504211

Are ultrasound-guided ophthalmic blocks injurious to the eye? A comparative rabbit model study of two ultrasound devices evaluating intraorbital thermal and structural changes.

Howard D Palte1, Steven Gayer, Esdras Arrieta, Eric Scot Shaw, Izuru Nose, Elizabete Lee, Kristopher L Arheart, Sander Dubovy, David J Birnbach, Jean-Marie Parel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Since Atkinson's original description of retrobulbar block in 1936, needle-based anesthetic techniques have become integral to ophthalmic anesthesia. These techniques are unfortunately associated with rare, grave complications such as globe perforation. Ultrasound has gained widespread acceptance for peripheral nerve blockade, but its translation to ocular anesthesia has been hampered because sonic energy, in the guise of thermal or biomechanical insult, is potentially injurious to vulnerable eye tissue. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has defined guidelines for safe use of ultrasound for ophthalmic examination, but most ultrasound devices used by anesthesiologists are not FDA-approved for ocular application because they generate excessive energy. Regulating agencies state that ultrasound examinations can be safely undertaken as long as tissue temperatures do not increase >1.5°C above physiological levels.
METHODS: Using a rabbit model, we investigated the thermal and mechanical ocular effects after prolonged ultrasonic exposure to single orbital- and nonorbital-rated devices. In a dual-phase study, aimed at detecting ocular injury, the eyes of 8 rabbits were exposed to continuous 10-minute ultrasound examinations from 2 devices: (1) the Sonosite Micromaxx (nonorbital rated) and (2) the Sonomed VuMax (orbital rated) machines. In phase I, temperatures were continuously monitored via thermocouples implanted within specific eye structures (n = 4). In phase II the eyes were subjected to ultrasonic exposure without surgical intervention (n = 4). All eyes underwent light microscopy examinations, followed at different intervals by histology evaluations conducted by an ophthalmic pathologist.
RESULTS: Temperature changes were monitored in the eyes of 4 rabbits. The nonorbital-rated transducer produced increases in ocular tissue temperature that surpassed the safe limit (increases >1.5°C) in the lens of 3 rabbits (at 5.0, 5.5, and 1.5 minutes) and cornea of 2 rabbits (both at 1.5 minutes). A secondary analysis of temporal temperature differences between the orbital-rated and nonorbital transducers revealed statistically significant differences (Bonferroni-adjusted P < 0.05) in the cornea at 3.5 minutes, the lens at 2.5 minutes, and the vitreous at 4.0 minutes. Light microscopy and histology failed to elicit ocular injury in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: The nonorbital-rated ultrasound machine (Sonosite Micromaxx) increases the ocular tissue temperature. A larger study is needed to establish safety. Until then, ophthalmic ultrasound-guided blocks should only be performed with ocular-rated devices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22504211      PMCID: PMC3381790          DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e318253622e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  15 in total

1.  Safety levels for exposure of cornea and lens to very high-frequency ultrasound.

Authors:  R H Silverman; F L Lizzi; B G Ursea; L Cozzarelli; J A Ketterling; C X Deng; R Folberg; D J Coleman
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 2.153

2.  AIUM Technical Bulletin. How to interpret the ultrasound output display standard for higher acoustic output diagnostic ultrasound devices: version 2.

Authors:  Wesley Lee; Brian Garra
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.153

3.  Thermal assessment of 40-MHz pulsed Doppler ultrasound in human eye.

Authors:  Viviene Cucevic; Allison S Brown; F Stuart Foster
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.998

Review 4.  Hazards, risks and safety of diagnostic ultrasound.

Authors:  Francis A Duck
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2008-07-16       Impact factor: 2.242

5.  WFUMB Symposium on Safety of Ultrasound in Medicine. Conclusions and recommendations on thermal and non-thermal mechanisms for biological effects of ultrasound. Kloster-Banz, Germany. 14-19 April, 1996. World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Ultrasonic heating of the skull.

Authors:  E L Carstensen; S Z Child; S Norton; W Nyborg
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 7.  The sensitivity of biological tissue to ultrasound.

Authors:  S B Barnett; H D Rott; G R ter Haar; M C Ziskin; K Maeda
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 2.998

8.  The ultrasonic localization of retrobulbar needles during retrobulbar block.

Authors:  A A Birch; M Evans; E Redembo
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 12.079

9.  Isolated human and rabbit eye: Models of corneal toxicity.

Authors:  M Berry; D L Easty
Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 3.500

10.  Intestinal hemorrhage from exposure to pulsed ultrasound.

Authors:  D Dalecki; C H Raeman; S Z Child; E L Carstensen
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.998

View more
  7 in total

1.  Thermal safety of ultrasound-enhanced ocular drug delivery: A modeling study.

Authors:  Marjan Nabili; Craig Geist; Vesna Zderic
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  Updates in Pediatric Regional Anesthesia and Its Role in the Treatment of Acute Pain in the Ambulatory Setting.

Authors:  Alecia L S Stein; Dorothea Baumgard; Isis Del Rio; Jacqueline L Tutiven
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2017-02

Review 3.  Ophthalmic regional blocks: management, challenges, and solutions.

Authors:  Howard D Palte
Journal:  Local Reg Anesth       Date:  2015-08-20

4.  Ultrasound-enhanced ocular delivery of dexamethasone sodium phosphate: an in vivo study.

Authors:  Marjan Nabili; Aditi Shenoy; Shawn Chawla; Sankaranarayana Mahesh; Ji Liu; Craig Geist; Vesna Zderic
Journal:  J Ther Ultrasound       Date:  2014-03-31

5.  Establishing a risk assessment framework for point-of-care ultrasound.

Authors:  Thomas W Conlon; Nadya Yousef; Juan Mayordomo-Colunga; Cecile Tissot; Maria V Fraga; Shazia Bhombal; Pradeep Suryawanshi; Alberto Medina Villanueva; Bijan Siassi; Yogen Singh
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 3.183

6.  Feasibility of Therapeutic Ultrasound Application in Topical Scleral Delivery of Avastin.

Authors:  Hanaa H Almogbil; Fadi P Nasrallah; Vesna Zderic
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 3.283

7.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound in Detection of Traumatic Lens Dislocation.

Authors:  Seyed Hossein Ojaghi Haghighi; Hamid Reza Morteza Begi; Raana Sorkhabi; Mohammad Kazem Tarzamani; Golshan Kamali Zonouz; Akram Mikaeilpour; Farzad Rahmani
Journal:  Emerg (Tehran)       Date:  2014
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.