Comparison of liposomal bupivacaine and modified cocktail analgesia for postoperative pain control after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Junhu Li, Mei Yao, Jin Chen, Zhiqiang Yang, Shuxin Zheng, Jianzhi Wang, Weinan Zeng, Xi Yang, Lei Wang, Yueming Song
{"title":"Comparison of liposomal bupivacaine and modified cocktail analgesia for postoperative pain control after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Junhu Li, Mei Yao, Jin Chen, Zhiqiang Yang, Shuxin Zheng, Jianzhi Wang, Weinan Zeng, Xi Yang, Lei Wang, Yueming Song","doi":"10.3171/2026.4.SPINE251671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Postoperative incisional pain remains a major clinical challenge after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) and modified cocktail analgesia have shown analgesic efficacy in other surgical settings, but their comparative value in TLIF remains unclear. This study compared the analgesic effectiveness of LB versus a modified cocktail regimen administered via an erector spinae plane block (ESPB) in patients undergoing TLIF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 181 patients were screened and 118 eligible patients were randomized equally to the LB group or the modified cocktail group (n = 59 each). In both groups, the study drug was administered via ESPB at the surgical level. The LB group received 266 mg LB diluted to 80 ml. The modified cocktail group received ropivacaine, epinephrine, dexamethasone, magnesium sulfate, and sodium bicarbonate. All other perioperative management was identical. The primary outcome was total postoperative rescue morphine consumption. Secondary outcomes included time to first rescue analgesia; 24-hour morphine consumption; number of rescue analgesia events; patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) activations and consumption; visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores at rest and during activity at 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 72 hours; time to first ambulation; ambulation distance; length of hospital stay; and postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The LB group required significantly less total postoperative rescue morphine than the modified cocktail group (mean 16.2 [SD 11.6] vs 22.6 [SD 12.0] mg, p = 0.020). No significant differences were noted in the median time to first rescue analgesia (20.6 [IQR 8.3-36.6] vs 10.0 [IQR 3.2-27.9] hours, p = 0.074), mean morphine consumption within 24 hours (7.1 [SD 2.5] vs 7.2 [SD 2.5] mg, p = 0.894), or mean number of rescue analgesia events (2.4 [SD 1.4] vs 3.3 [SD 2.1] events, p = 0.058). The LB group had markedly fewer PCA activations (mean 7.3 [SD 6.4] vs 17.6 [SD 10.1] activations, p < 0.001) and lower total PCA drug use (mean 33.4 [SD 23.1] vs 62.8 [SD 27.8] ml, p < 0.001). Significant intergroup differences in VAS pain scores appeared only at 24 and 36 hours postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both LB and the modified cocktail regimen administered via ESPB effectively reduced early incisional pain after TLIF. The modified cocktail provided satisfactory analgesia within 24 hours at substantially lower cost, whereas LB offered more prolonged analgesia up to 36 hours, with reduced opioid consumption and PCA demand. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry no.: ChiCTR2400089275 (https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.html).</p>","PeriodicalId":16562,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2026.4.SPINE251671","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Postoperative incisional pain remains a major clinical challenge after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) and modified cocktail analgesia have shown analgesic efficacy in other surgical settings, but their comparative value in TLIF remains unclear. This study compared the analgesic effectiveness of LB versus a modified cocktail regimen administered via an erector spinae plane block (ESPB) in patients undergoing TLIF.

Methods: In this prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 181 patients were screened and 118 eligible patients were randomized equally to the LB group or the modified cocktail group (n = 59 each). In both groups, the study drug was administered via ESPB at the surgical level. The LB group received 266 mg LB diluted to 80 ml. The modified cocktail group received ropivacaine, epinephrine, dexamethasone, magnesium sulfate, and sodium bicarbonate. All other perioperative management was identical. The primary outcome was total postoperative rescue morphine consumption. Secondary outcomes included time to first rescue analgesia; 24-hour morphine consumption; number of rescue analgesia events; patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) activations and consumption; visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores at rest and during activity at 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 72 hours; time to first ambulation; ambulation distance; length of hospital stay; and postoperative complications.

Results: The LB group required significantly less total postoperative rescue morphine than the modified cocktail group (mean 16.2 [SD 11.6] vs 22.6 [SD 12.0] mg, p = 0.020). No significant differences were noted in the median time to first rescue analgesia (20.6 [IQR 8.3-36.6] vs 10.0 [IQR 3.2-27.9] hours, p = 0.074), mean morphine consumption within 24 hours (7.1 [SD 2.5] vs 7.2 [SD 2.5] mg, p = 0.894), or mean number of rescue analgesia events (2.4 [SD 1.4] vs 3.3 [SD 2.1] events, p = 0.058). The LB group had markedly fewer PCA activations (mean 7.3 [SD 6.4] vs 17.6 [SD 10.1] activations, p < 0.001) and lower total PCA drug use (mean 33.4 [SD 23.1] vs 62.8 [SD 27.8] ml, p < 0.001). Significant intergroup differences in VAS pain scores appeared only at 24 and 36 hours postoperatively.

Conclusions: Both LB and the modified cocktail regimen administered via ESPB effectively reduced early incisional pain after TLIF. The modified cocktail provided satisfactory analgesia within 24 hours at substantially lower cost, whereas LB offered more prolonged analgesia up to 36 hours, with reduced opioid consumption and PCA demand. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry no.: ChiCTR2400089275 (https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.html).

布比卡因脂质体与改良鸡尾酒镇痛对经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术术后疼痛控制的比较:一项前瞻性、双盲、随机对照试验。
目的:经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)术后切口疼痛仍然是一个主要的临床挑战。布比卡因脂质体(LB)和改良鸡尾酒镇痛在其他手术环境中显示出镇痛效果,但它们在TLIF中的比较价值尚不清楚。本研究比较了LB和改良鸡尾酒疗法对TLIF患者的镇痛效果,这些疗法通过竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESPB)给药。方法:本前瞻性、双盲、随机对照试验筛选181例患者,将符合条件的患者118例随机分为LB组和改良鸡尾酒组(n = 59)。在两组中,研究药物在手术水平上通过ESPB给药。LB组给予266 mg LB稀释至80 ml。改良鸡尾酒组给予罗哌卡因、肾上腺素、地塞米松、硫酸镁、碳酸氢钠。其他围手术期处理均相同。主要观察指标为术后抢救吗啡总消耗量。次要结局包括到首次抢救镇痛的时间;24小时吗啡用量;抢救镇痛事件数;患者自控镇痛(PCA)的激活和消耗;视觉模拟评分(VAS)休息时和活动时疼痛评分,分别为3,6,12,24,36,48和72小时;第一次行走的时间;步行距离;住院时间;以及术后并发症。结果:LB组术后所需吗啡总剂量明显低于改良鸡尾酒组(平均16.2 [SD 11.6] vs 22.6 [SD 12.0] mg, p = 0.020)。两组首次镇痛抢救的中位时间(20.6 [IQR 8.3-36.6]小时vs 10.0 [IQR 3.2-27.9]小时,p = 0.074)、24小时内吗啡平均用量(7.1 [SD 2.5] vs 7.2 [SD 2.5] mg, p = 0.894)、平均镇痛抢救事件数(2.4 [SD 1.4] vs 3.3 [SD 2.1]事件,p = 0.058)均无显著差异。LB组PCA激活明显减少(平均7.3 [SD 6.4] vs 17.6 [SD 10.1]激活,p < 0.001),总PCA药物使用减少(平均33.4 [SD 23.1] vs 62.8 [SD 27.8] ml, p < 0.001)。VAS疼痛评分仅在术后24和36小时出现组间差异。结论:通过ESPB给予LB和改良鸡尾酒方案均能有效减少TLIF术后早期切口疼痛。改良后的鸡尾酒在24小时内以较低的成本提供了令人满意的镇痛,而LB提供了长达36小时的更长时间的镇痛,减少了阿片类药物的消耗和PCA的需求。中国临床试验注册号:: ChiCTR2400089275 (https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.html)。
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
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Primarily publish original works in neurosurgery but also include studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书