With reference to G. Reah et al. [1], I would like to report an unfortunate if not entirely unpredictable side-effect of employing vecuronium to augment peribulbar anaesthesia. In common with Reah et al., I have experienced some unpredictable levels of akinesia when performing peribulbar blocks and was intrigued to read their groundbreaking study. Being most interested to employ their technique and using their paper as a reference, I started my own series. Eventually, I performed 30 peribulbar blocks employing vecuronium to improve the akinesia through its neuromuscular blocking action. All patients had intravenous access established pre-anaesthesia and were monitored with pulse oximetry and ECG. Neuromuscular monitoring was not felt to be necessary as (apart from being painful) the patients, being conscious, would be able to report any decrease in muscle power. Starting with a solution of 9.5 ml of plain lidocaine 2% with 300 units hyalase and 0.25 ml (0.5 mg) vecuronium, I used 1 ml of amethocaine 1% topically to the cornea followed by a single median injection with a 25-mm 25 G needle. A Honans balloon was inflated to 30 cm water pressure and was applied for 5 min. After 15 patients, my results were subjectively no better than normal. This perhaps is not surprising as Reah et al. also found that in their vecuronium group they still described 11/30 blocks as poor. Because of this and also believing incorrectly that significant systemic spread via intravenous injection would be heralded by the predominant effects of the local anaesthetic (a view shared by Reah et al.), I increased my dose of vecuronium to 0.5 ml (1 mg) for the following 10 cases. No adverse effects were detected but, unfortunately, neither was any noticeable improvement in akinesia. In the last five cases, 2 mg of vecuronium was used and in the last of these a problem arose. A 72-year-old woman presented for cataract surgery and received the same anaesthetic as I have described. Five minutes after the block, the Honans balloon was removed and adequate akinesia was demonstrated. The patient was then transferred to the operating room and prepared for surgery. Exactly 9 min postinjection the patient complained, in a whisper, that she was having some difficulty in speaking and 1 min later she reported some respiratory distress. At this point, surgical preparation was discontinued and the patient was sat up in order to assist her breathing. A rapid neurological examination showed that she had reduced power but normal sensation in all four limbs. Her blood pressure was 210/70 mmHg, indicating that inadvertent intrathecal injection was unlikely to be the cause. Suspecting systemic spread of the vecuronium, the patient was immediately given neostigmine 0.75 mg and glycopyrrolate 0.15 mg. In less than 1 min she had made a complete recovery. Surgery was postponed, however, and the patient was observed in recovery for 1 h before returning to the ward. That evening the patient was discharged home. In the Reah study, the vecuronium dose was one-quarter of that which I used and this is most likely to explain why I observed an episode of clinically significant systemic spread, whereas they did not. On top of this, their solution contained 1 : 440 000 epinephrine, which may also have been a contributory factor in reducing systemic spread. The Reah study, however, was, as they attest, relatively small and inferences as to the safety of the technique should be made with caution. With only 30 in their treatment group, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the occurrence of such complications may still be as high as 10% [2]. Given this, and the fact that Reah still observed a high proportion of poor blocks (an observation with which I concur), it may be that the margin of safety between minimum effective and maximum safe dose is very small. The use of vecuronium in this way cannot therefore be recommended unless larger more powerful studies can confirm its safety in the future. Ironically, in their discussion, Reah et al. propose that with the current trend towards topical anaesthesia for certain ophthalmic work, any benefit from the use of vecuronium might soon be rendered obsolete. For my own part, I think I will avoid using it henceforth. As for my 72-year-old patient, she was re-admitted 1 month later and had an uneventful procedure under regional anaesthesia without vecuronium.
Read full abstract