Efficacy of Liposomal Bupivacaine Versus Standard Bupivacaine Following Abdominal Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 2.5 3区医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY

Pain Practice Pub Date : 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1111/papr.70048

Mohamed Saad Sayed, Shree Rath, Warda Rasool, Fatima Saeed, Haider Kashif, Mohab Amer

{"title":"Efficacy of Liposomal Bupivacaine Versus Standard Bupivacaine Following Abdominal Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Mohamed Saad Sayed, Shree Rath, Warda Rasool, Fatima Saeed, Haider Kashif, Mohab Amer","doi":"10.1111/papr.70048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The development of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) as an anesthetic was widely lauded due to the potential benefits this drug claimed to carry. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of LB versus standard bupivacaine (SB) in improving postoperative outcomes, including pain scores and morphine use.Methods: PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and MedLine databases were searched until April 2024. All trials evaluating the efficacy of LB versus SB in abdominal surgeries like colorectal procedures, bariatric surgeries, and hemorrhoidectomy were included. Data analysis was conducted in Review Manager employing a random-effects model.Results: Eight clinical trials with 810 patients were included. No statistically or clinically significant result was obtained on using LB over SB in reducing postoperative pain score on postoperative day 0 (POD0) (mean difference (MD) = -0.19, [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.91, 0.53]; p = 0.60), POD1 (MD = -0.11 [95% CI: -1.12, 0.91]; p = 0.84), POD2 (MD = -0.18 [95% CI: -0.57, 0.22]; p = 0.22), and POD3 (MD = 0.01 [95% CI: -0.55, 0.22]; p = 0.57). Additionally, there was no reduction in morphine use in PODs 0-3, time to ambulation, hours to postoperative flatus, or length of hospital stay between the groups.Conclusion: Our findings showed that LB is not superior to SB in the surgical plane for individuals undergoing abdominal procedures.","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":"25 5","pages":"e70048"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.70048","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The development of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) as an anesthetic was widely lauded due to the potential benefits this drug claimed to carry. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of LB versus standard bupivacaine (SB) in improving postoperative outcomes, including pain scores and morphine use.

Methods: PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and MedLine databases were searched until April 2024. All trials evaluating the efficacy of LB versus SB in abdominal surgeries like colorectal procedures, bariatric surgeries, and hemorrhoidectomy were included. Data analysis was conducted in Review Manager employing a random-effects model.

Results: Eight clinical trials with 810 patients were included. No statistically or clinically significant result was obtained on using LB over SB in reducing postoperative pain score on postoperative day 0 (POD0) (mean difference (MD) = -0.19, [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.91, 0.53]; p = 0.60), POD1 (MD = -0.11 [95% CI: -1.12, 0.91]; p = 0.84), POD2 (MD = -0.18 [95% CI: -0.57, 0.22]; p = 0.22), and POD3 (MD = 0.01 [95% CI: -0.55, 0.22]; p = 0.57). Additionally, there was no reduction in morphine use in PODs 0-3, time to ambulation, hours to postoperative flatus, or length of hospital stay between the groups.

Conclusion: Our findings showed that LB is not superior to SB in the surgical plane for individuals undergoing abdominal procedures.

查看原文本刊更多论文

布比卡因脂质体与标准布比卡因在腹部手术后的疗效：随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。

背景：布比卡因脂质体（LB）作为麻醉剂的发展受到广泛赞誉，因为这种药物声称具有潜在的益处。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估LB与标准布比卡因（SB）在改善术后预后方面的疗效，包括疼痛评分和吗啡使用。方法：检索PubMed、Cochrane CENTRAL、Web of Science和MedLine数据库至2024年4月。所有评估LB与SB在腹部手术（如结肠直肠手术、减肥手术和痔疮切除术）疗效的试验均被纳入。在Review Manager中采用随机效应模型进行数据分析。结果：纳入8项临床试验，共810例患者。在术后第0天（POD0），使用LB比使用SB降低术后疼痛评分没有统计学或临床意义(平均差异(MD) = -0.19，[95%可信区间（CI）： -0.91, 0.53]；p = 0.60), POD1 (MD = -0.11(95%置信区间CI: -1.12, 0.91);p = 0.84), POD2 (MD = -0.18(95%置信区间CI: -0.57, 0.22);p = 0.22), POD3 (MD = 0.01(95%置信区间CI: -0.55, 0.22);p = 0.57)。此外，在pod 0-3组中，吗啡的使用、下床时间、术后胀气时间或住院时间均未减少。结论：我们的研究结果表明，在接受腹部手术的个体中，LB并不优于SB。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Pain Practice ANESTHESIOLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

CiteScore

5.60

自引率

3.80%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Pain Practice, the official journal of the World Institute of Pain, publishes international multidisciplinary articles on pain and analgesia that provide its readership with up-to-date research, evaluation methods, and techniques for pain management. Special sections including the Consultant’s Corner, Images in Pain Practice, Case Studies from Mayo, Tutorials, and the Evidence-Based Medicine combine to give pain researchers, pain clinicians and pain fellows in training a systematic approach to continuing education in pain medicine. Prior to publication, all articles and reviews undergo peer review by at least two experts in the field.