Liposomal bupivacaine used for infiltration1–18 and field blocks19–25 is proposed to provide extended postoperative analgesia up to 72 h26,27 after various surgical procedures. Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Silver Spring, Maryland) approved liposomal bupivacaine for perineural use in interscalene block of the brachial plexus.28 However, evidence of the clinical effectiveness of perineurally applied liposomal bupivacaine in extending the duration of postoperative analgesia of peripheral nerve blocks is not definitive.29 Indeed, a recent Cochrane review30 of seven trials could not confirm the claim that liposomal bupivacaine improved analgesic outcomes.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of perineural liposomal bupivacaine in improving peripheral nerve block analgesia, in comparison with nonliposomal local anesthetics, across various surgical procedures. We designated the difference in postoperative pain severity over the 24- to 72-h interval as a primary outcome. We also assessed the potential benefits of liposomal bupivacaine on short-term analgesic outcomes, as well as long-term outcomes, such as persistent postsurgical pain, opioid dependence, and health-related quality of life. Industry-sponsored trials werea priori considered a potential source of bias to be identified in the literature search and subsequent analysis.
Materials and Methods
The authors adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines in preparation of this study.31 We searched for randomized trials that compared the effect of perineural liposomal bupivacaine with nonliposomal local anesthetics on short-term analgesic outcomes and other long-term outcomes in patients having surgery with peripheral regional anesthesia techniques. The created study protocol was not registered with the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO).
Eligibility Criteria
Randomized trials of adult patients (18 yr or older) undergoing any type of surgery with peripheral nerve blocks that compared perineural liposomal bupivacaine with nonliposomal local anesthetics were considered. All types of single-injection peripheral nerve blocks were considered, regardless of dose or volume of liposomal bupivacaine used. Only nonliposomal local anesthetic (i.e., not combined with liposomal bupivacaine) was considered as a comparator. Studies involving perineural adjuvants other than epinephrine were excluded. Studies of field blocks (i.e., transversus abdominal block) and infiltration techniques (i.e., port site infiltration or local infiltration analgesia) were not included to preserve homogeneity between studies. Studies of healthy volunteers were not eligible. Abstracts were not considered unless the full-text studies were available, and any foreign language studies were translated using an online translator.
Literature Search
A systematic search strategy was created by an evidence-based medicine librarian (L.B.) for the U.S. National Library of Medicine (Bethesda, Maryland) database (MEDLINE), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Excerpta Medica database from inception to May 1, 2020. The search strategy was based on an initial search generated for MEDLINE (appendix 1). The strategy contained key words related to liposomal bupivacaine, pain, analgesic consumption, and postoperative analgesia. The reference lists of potentially eligible citations were also manually searched to identify additional trials that fulfilled inclusion criteria. We also reviewed the U.S. clinical trials registry (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) for in-progress or completed clinical trials that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Finally, conference proceedings for the American Society of Anesthesiologists (Schaumburg, Illinois) 2011 to 2020 and American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) 2013 to 2020 were electronically searched for potentially eligible citations.
Selection of Included Studies
Two reviewers (N.H. and B.S.) independently screened the titles and abstracts yielded by the literature search. The full texts of potentially eligible citations were then retrieved and evaluated for inclusion by the same independent reviewers. Any disagreement between the two reviewers was discussed until a consensus was reached. If consensus could not be reached between the two independent reviewers, a third reviewer (F.A.) made the final decision.
Data Extraction
A data extraction form was created using a Microsoft Excel (USA) spreadsheet and piloted by an independent reviewer (N.H). Data extraction was subsequently carried out independently by two reviewers (N.H. and B.S.). Any discrepancies in data extraction were discussed until a consensus was reached. If consensus could not be reached between the two independent reviewers, a third reviewer (F.A.) made the final decision.
The data extraction form collected information regarding the following variables: year of publication; participant age; publication year; type of surgery; surgical anesthetic; type of regional anesthetic technique; dose and volume of nonliposomal local anesthetic used; dose of volume of liposomal bupivacaine used; adjuvant used in local anesthetic solution; preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative analgesic regimens; rest and dynamic pain scores at all reported times; analgesic consumption at all reported times; time to first analgesic request (duration of analgesia); opioid-related side effects; satisfaction with pain relief; hospital length of stay; liposomal bupivacaine–related side effects; functional recovery; and long-term outcomes including incidence of persistent postsurgical pain, health-related quality of life, opioid dependence, and pain-related disability. The primary source of data was numerical data presented in tables and figures. Data reported in graphical form were extracted with the assistance of graph digitizing software (GraphClick, Arizona Software, USA).
Assessment of Methodologic Quality and Risk of Bias
The methodologic quality of included trials was evaluated independently by two reviewers (N.H. and B.S.) using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for risk of bias assessment.32 We conservatively assigned an “unclear risk of bias” to blinding of personnel and outcome assessors’ domain for those studies in which the methods did not provide sufficient details.
In addition, the methodologic quality for each outcome pooled across trials was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation33,34 guidelines. The strength of evidence was then rated as being of high quality (⊕⊕⊕⊕), moderate quality (⊕⊕⊕⊝), low quality (⊕⊕⊝⊝), or very low quality (⊕⊝⊝⊝) evidence.
All quality assessments were done in duplicate by two independent reviewers (N.H. and B.S.). Any discrepancies in quality assessment were discussed until a consensus was reached. If consensus could not be reached between the two independent reviewers, a third reviewer (F.A.) made the final decision.
Primary and Secondary Outcomes
Because liposomal bupivacaine is promoted to improve duration and quality of analgesia beyond the first 24 h,26,27,35 we selected analgesic outcomes that emphasized the 24- to 72-h time interval to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine and nonliposomal local anesthetic. To that end, the primary outcome of this meta-analysis was designated as the 24- to 72-h difference in the weighted mean area under the curve (AUC) rest pain scores between patients receiving perineural analgesia inclusive of liposomal bupivacaineversus nonliposomal local anesthetics.
The secondary analgesic outcomes examined included cumulative oral milligram morphine equivalent consumption on days one (0 to 24 h), two (25 to 48 h), and three (49 to 72 h) postoperatively; postoperative rest pain severity (visual analog scale) scores at 1, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively; time to first analgesic request (hours); opioid-related side effects (nausea and vomiting, sedation/respiratory depression, pruritus, hypotension, urinary retention, or constipation); patient satisfaction; and hospital length of stay (hours). We also evaluated incidence of liposomal bupivacaine adverse effects (i.e., hypesthesia, pyrexia, pruritus)36; postoperative functional recovery; and long-term outcomes, including the risk of persistent postsurgical pain, health-related quality of life, opioid dependence, and pain-related disability.
Measurement of Outcome Data
All measures of postoperative pain severity that were expressed as units of a 10-unit scale were converted to an equivalent score on the 0- to 10-cm visual analog scale score (0, no pain; and 10, worst pain possible).37,38 Similarly, all measures of patient satisfaction were also converted to a 0- to 10-cm score (0, least satisfied; and 10, most satisfied).38 All opioid consumption data were converted to cumulative oral morphine equivalents for the specific time interval (i.e., 0 to 24 h, 25 to 48 h, 49 to 72 h).39 Time-to-event data were presented in hours.
Statistical Analysis
The mean ± SD were sought for all continuous outcomes. When these were not available, statistical conversions40–43 were made using the presented data to approximate these values. Specifically, the median and interquartile range were used to approximate the mean and SD when its value was not provided.40 In situations where a mean and 95% CI was provided, conversions were made to a mean and SD using the methods described by the Cochrane Collaboration.41 The median was used to approximate the mean in situations where it was the only value provided. If no measure of variance was provided, the value of the SD was imputed as a last resort.42 This was done by calculating the pooled SD from all other studies included in the same outcome analyzed.42 Finally, when needed for statistical pooling, categorical/ordinal data were converted to continuous form with corresponding mean ± SD using the natural units of the most familiar instrument.38 In all circumstances, authors were contacted for additional results data, if needed.
For AUC analysis, the weighted mean difference (95% CI) in AUC of acute rest pain between liposomal bupivacaine and plain local anesthetic over the first 24- to 72-h postoperative period was calculated using the weighted means of the pooled rest pain scores during the 24-, 48-, and 72-h timepoints. The weighted means were then used to calculate the AUC for a specific time interval (i.e., 24 to 48 h and 48 to 72 h). The results of individual studies were weighted by their overall sample size. This analysis was only conducted if (1) data were available for all three timepoints and (2) data for a specific timepoint was available from three or more studies.
For evaluation of the effect of liposomal bupivacaine on postoperative functional recovery, wea priori planned to report (1) the mean difference if all studies used the same continuous scale, (2) the log (odds ratio) if trials reported continuous dataand used different tools measuring the same theme to assess postoperative function, or (3) an odds ratio if all trials reported binary outcomes. If scenario 2 was applicable, the conversion to log (odds ratio) from a standardized mean difference was done using the formula log (odds ratio) = standardized mean difference (π / √3),44,45 under the assumption that the mean scores for each group followed a logistic distribution and that variances were equal between the two groups.
Meta-analysis
For continuous outcomes, pooling was performed using the inverse variance method because we anticipated clinical heterogeneity between studies. For dichotomous outcomes, pooling was performed using the Mantel–Haenszel random-effects model.46 For our primary outcome, a weighted mean difference with 95% CI was calculated, and a two-tailedP value of < 0.05 was designated as the threshold of statistical significance.
For the continuous secondary outcomes of this review, a mean difference with 99% CI was calculated. For the dichotomous secondary outcomes, an odds ratio with 99% CI was calculated. Finally, for postoperative functional recovery, reporting depended on the nature of data (as described above). The 99% CI was used for all secondary outcomes to decrease the risk of type I error associated with multiple testing, and a two-tailedP value of < 0.01 was designated as the threshold of statistical significance. To that end, we also used a threshold for statistical significance adjusted by the Bonferroni–Holm correction for comparisons in the secondary outcome analysis.47
Statistical pooling was only performed for those outcomes that had data from three or more studies. A qualitative evaluation was performed for those outcomes with fewer than three studies.
Interpretation of Outcome Results
For rest pain scores during the 24- to 72-h time interval, the results were interpreted in light of the minimal clinically important difference in pain scores for acute postoperative pain. This has been defined to be a 1.0-cm change on a 0- to 10-cm scale at an individual timepoint across a variety of surgeries.48 For an AUC encompassing three measurements (24, 48, and 72 h), a threshold equivalent to 2.0 cm · h is calculated using the trapezoid method49 and a minimum clinically important difference of 1.0 cm48 for each of the three measurements.
Although not rigorously established, for cumulative opioid consumption during the 0- to 72-h interval, we considered a 30-mg difference in oral morphine consumption50 (or 10 mg intravenous morphine) to be clinically important.
Assessment of Heterogeneity
For the primary outcome of this review (i.e., 24- to 72-h difference in the AUC of rest pain scores),a priori sensitivity analysis was carried out by sequential exclusion of data from trials (1) published in nonindexed journals, (2) available as abstracts only, (3) published only in only U.S. Clinical Trials Registry, (4) with high-risk of bias in one or more domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool, (5) that used other long-acting local anesthetics (i.e., levobupivacaine or ropivacaine), and (6) supported by or declared conflict of interest with industry, specifically companies involved in manufacturing liposomal bupivacaine.
The extent of statistical heterogeneity in our secondary outcomes was assessed by calculating a percentage of variation (I2) statistic, with values greater than 50% indicating significant heterogeneity. For instances of significant heterogeneity, the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation quality of evidence for an outcome were downgraded.
Assessment of Publication Bias
The risk of publication bias was assessed using the Egger’s regression test when data from at least three trials were available for an estimate of effect.51
Data Management
Forest and funnel plots were generated using Review Manager Software (RevMan version 5.2; Nordic Cochrane Center, Denmark; Cochrane Collaboration). Sensitivity analysis and tests for publication bias were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 3.0 (Engelwood, USA).
Results
The literature search identified a total of 439 unique citations, and an additional 31 were identified after searching the U.S. Clinical Trials Registry. Thus, a total of 470 citations underwent screening based on title and abstract alone. Of these, 418 were excluded for many reasons, including incorrect comparison (n = 298), incorrect study design (n = 95), and incomplete study data (n = 26). The remaining 52 citations had their full-text versions retrieved or protocols reviewed for additional eligibility. After full-text screening, a total of 43 citations were excluded because of incorrect comparator (n = 42)1–25,52–68 or lack of available data (n = 1).69 As a result, a total of nine randomized trials were included in this review,70–78 of which four73–76 were from the U.S. Clinical Trials Registry and five70–72,77,78 were published as full text. The flow diagram for study inclusion can be viewed infigure 1. Of these trials, the authors of one study declared conflicts of interest related to industry sponsorship.71
Study Characteristics
The study characteristics and outcomes included in this review are presented intable 1. The nine trials70–78 involved 619 patients, of whom 316 received peripheral nerve blocks using perineural liposomal bupivacaine, and 303 received blocks with nonliposomal local anesthetics. Rest pain scores from 24 to 72 h postoperatively were assessed by all nine trials.70–78 Eight of the trials reported opioid consumption beyond 24 h.70–77 Specific details regarding the measures of pain assessed by the included trials can be viewed in appendix 2. The risk of bias assessment for all included studies can be viewed infigure 2.
Table 1.:Study Characteristics and Outcomes of Interest Assessed in Included Studies
Fig. 2.:Risk of bias assessment for included studies.
The types of surgeries performed included major shoulder surgery,71 rotator cuff surgery,73 arthroscopic shoulder surgery,76 hip arthroscopy,70 total knee arthroplasty,74 video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery,75 minimally invasive lung resection,77 inflatable penile prosthesis placement,78 and total mastectomy.72 The details of the peripheral nerve blocks techniques used are summarized intable 2. The blocks included interscalene nerve block,71,73,76 adductor canal block,74 intercostal nerve block,75,77 dorsal penile block,78 fascia iliaca block,70 and pectoralis myofascial plane block.72 The volume and dose of perineural liposomal bupivacaine ranged from 10 to 40 ml and 88 to 266 mg, respectively; one trial did not specify the dose used.77 All studies compared the use of perineural liposomal bupivacaine to plain long-acting local anesthetic bupivacaine70–77 or ropivacaine78; three studies70,71,73 had additional study arms that mixed liposomal bupivacaine with plain bupivacaine.
Table 2.:Local Anesthetic Techniques for Liposomal Bupivacaine and Analgesic Regiments of Included Studies
Primary Outcome
AUC of Rest Pain over 24 to 72 h
Across 24 to 72 h,70–74,76–78 the mean difference (95% CI) in AUC of rest pain was found to be 1.0 cm · h (0.5 to 1.6;P = 0.003) in favor of liposomal bupivacaine (fig. 3; appendix 3), but this difference failed to meet the threshold for clinical significance (i.e., 2.0 cm · h;P < 0.001).
Fig. 3.:Graphical representation of the area under the curve of the pooled weighted mean pain scores at rest as measured by the visual analog scale (0 to 10 cm) over time for liposomal bupivacaineversus nonliposomal bupivacaine.
Importantly, the magnitude of treatment effect lost significance when the industry-sponsored trial71 was excluded from analysis, with a mean difference of 0.7 cm · h (−0.1 to 1.5;P = 0.100). Heterogeneity also remained low (I2 < 50%) for all individual pain scores included in this analysis after exclusion of the industry-sponsored trial.71 The remaining results were robust to sensitivity analysis after exclusion of (1) the study published in a nonindexed journal,72 (2) those published only in the U.S. Clinical Trials Registry,73,74,76 and (3) the single study78 that used ropivacaine. Sensitivity analysis was not performed on studies available as abstracts and risk of bias assessment because no abstracts were included in the analysis and none of the included studies had a high risk of bias in multiple Cochrane risk of bias domains. Finally, the results were robust topost hoc sensitivity analysis by the sequential exclusion of trials70,77 that required imputation to derive a mean ± SD. The quality of evidence was high and the risk of publication bias was low for all included timepoints.
Secondary Analgesic Outcomes
Rest Pain Severity at Individual Timepoints
Compared with nonliposomal bupivacaine, liposomal bupivacaine did not improve the mean difference (99% CI) of postoperative rest pain severity at 1 h (356 patients; liposomal bupivacaine, 172; nonliposomal bupivacaine, 184; mean difference, 0.4 cm [−0.2 to 0.9]70,72,74,77,78); 24 h (521 patients; liposomal bupivacaine, 268; nonliposomal bupivacaine, 253; mean difference, 0.2 cm [−0.4 to 0.8]70–74,76–78); 48 h (410 patients; liposomal bupivacaine, 215; nonliposomal bupivacaine, 195; mean difference, 0.5 cm [−0.2 to 1.2]70–74,76,77); and 72 h (384 patients; liposomal bupivacaine, 203; nonliposomal bupivacaine, 182; mean difference, 0.3 cm [−0.3 to 0.8]70–74,76;table 3). The quality of evidence was high for all timepoints, and the risk of publication bias was low.
Only one study72 assessed postoperative rest pain severity at 6 and 12 h postoperatively. Qualitatively, no difference in rest pain severity at 6 and 12 h was observed between patients receiving liposomal bupivacaine and nonliposomal bupivacaine.
Opioid Consumption
For the 0- to 24-h interval, six studies70,71,73,74,76,77 inclusive of 348 patients (liposomal bupivacaine, 185; nonliposomal bupivacaine, 163) reported analgesic consumption. Liposomal bupivacaine was not different than nonliposomal bupivacaine for this outcome, with a mean difference (99% CI) of 1 mg (−3 to 6;table 3). The quality of evidence was high and the risk of publication bias was low.
For the 25- to 48-h interval, six studies70,71,73,74,76,77 inclusive of 348 patients (liposomal bupivacaine, 172; nonliposomal bupivacaine, 152) reported analgesic consumption. Liposomal bupivacaine was not different than nonliposomal bupivacaine for this outcome, with a mean difference (99% CI) of 7 mg (−3 to 16;table 3;fig. 4). The quality of evidence was moderate owing to heterogeneity in the pooled estimate and the risk of publication bias was low.
Fig. 4.:Forest plot of cumulative oral morphine equivalent consumption at 25 to 48 h for liposomal bupivacaineversus nonliposomal bupivacaine. Pooled estimates of the weighted mean difference are shown with 99% CI. Pooled estimates are represented asdiamonds, andlines represent the 99% CI.
For the 49- to 72-h interval, six studies70–74,76 inclusive of 298 patients (liposomal bupivacaine, 160; nonliposomal bupivacaine, 138) reported analgesic consumption. Liposomal bupivacaine was not different than nonliposomal bupivacaine for this outcome, with a mean difference (99% CI) of 4 mg (−2 to 10;table 3). The quality of evidence was high and the risk of publication bias was low.
Time to First Analgesic Request
Three studies71,72,76 inclusive of 175 patients (liposomal bupivacaine, 89; nonliposomal bupivacaine, 86) reported time to analgesic request. Liposomal bupivacaine was not different than nonliposomal bupivacaine for this outcome, with a mean difference (99% CI) of −1.3 h (−5.3 to 2.7;table 3). The quality of evidence was high and the risk of publication bias was low.
Opioid-related Side Effects
Three studies72,74,76 inclusive of 188 patients (liposomal bupivacaine, 94; nonliposomal bupivacaine, 94) reported opioid-related side effects. At 72 h, 17 of 94 patients and 23 of 94 patients experienced nausea/vomiting in the liposomal bupivacaine and nonliposomal bupivacaine groups, respectively; no statistical difference was observed between the two groups. The quality of evidence was high and the risk of publication bias was low.
Patient Satisfaction
Only one study71 reported satisfaction with pain relief. Qualitatively, patients receiving liposomal bupivacaine were more satisfied than those receiving and nonliposomal bupivacaine.
Length of Hospital Stay
Four studies70,72,75,77 inclusive of 304 patients (liposomal bupivacaine, 150; nonliposomal bupivacaine, 154) reported time to analgesic request. Liposomal bupivacaine was not different than nonliposomal bupivacaine for this outcome, with a mean difference (99% CI) of −0.1 days (−0.3 to 0.2;table 3). The quality of evidence was high and the risk of publication bias was low.
Liposomal Bupivacaine-related Adverse Effects
Six studies,70,71,73–76 inclusive of 209 patients who received liposomal bupivacaine, assessed medication-related side effects (i.e., hypesthesia, pyrexia, pruritus). Overall, no side effects were reported in any of these studies.
Functional Recovery
Two studies71,74 reported postoperative function at 24 h. One study measured quadriceps strength,74 and another assessed hand grip strength.71 Qualitatively, no difference was observed between patients receiving liposomal bupivacaine and nonliposomal bupivacaine.
Long-term Outcomes
One study75 assessed persistent pain at 30 days after surgery, and another77 assessed this outcome at 90-day follow-up. Qualitatively, no difference was observed between patients receiving liposomal bupivacaine and nonliposomal bupivacaine. Opioid dependence and health-related quality of life were not assessed in any of the trials.
Discussion
Our systematic review and meta-analysis provides high-quality evidence demonstrating that using liposomal bupivacaine perineurally in peripheral nerve blocks provides a statistically significant but clinically unimportant improvement in the AUC of postoperative pain scores compared with nonliposomal bupivacaine. Furthermore, exclusion of an industry-sponsored trial rendered this benefit insignificant. Level I evidence indicates that the liposomal formulation examined in this review is not different from nonliposomal bupivacaine for the analgesic outcomes examined, including acute rest pain severity and analgesic consumption up to 72 h postoperatively. This lack of difference was consistent across all outcomes and for all timepoints measured, up to 3 days postsurgery. These findings undermine the rationale for using liposomal bupivacaine perineurally and the justification for the associated extra costs.27,79,80 Practitioners seeking prolonged analgesia should consider other proven modalities, including catheter-based continuous blocks and local anesthetic adjuncts.81–85
Structurally, the liposomal local anesthetic preparation examined in this review features encapsulation by a multivesicular liposomal lipid bilayer, allowing sustained local anesthetic release, theoretically prolonging its effect up to 72 h after a single application.86–88 Pharmacokinetic studies seem to corroborate this slow release, showing sustained plasma bupivacaine levels up to 96 h86,87 and even 120 h after interscalene brachial plexus block.87 However, our review of clinical evidence of effectiveness of the perineural route in prolonging the duration of peripheral nerve block analgesia has demonstrated disparity with the anticipated benefits. Although this is a novel finding for the perineural route, it may not be totally new for liposomal bupivacaine. Several recent systematic reviews27,30,89–97 and an editorial29 examining the evidence for surgeon-administered local infiltration analgesia using liposomal bupivacaine have questioned its effectiveness. Curiously, the underlying causes of both perineural and infiltration routes failing to provide incremental benefits when compared with nonliposomal bupivacaine,98,99 and even placebo (normal saline),12 may be similar. One plausible explanation is that pH disparity makes liposomal bupivacaine stagnate extracellularly in the tissue in which it was injected, leading to failures in penetrating cells, interrupting signal transmission, and providing analgesia. As bupivacaine makes its initial contact with the tissue in which it is injected, it triggers a localized inflammatory response100 that renders the medium acidotic,101 impeding further tissue penetration by the subsequent bupivacaine molecules that are slowly released from the lipid-based depots (DepoFoam; Pacira Pharmaceuticals, USA).102 Thus, local anesthetic-induced inflammatory changes may be the main reason that liposomal bupivacaine was unable to surpass the clinical effectiveness of nonliposomal bupivacaine.
Our review comes with several strengths. First, our systemic search strategy was exhaustive and captured both published and ongoing studies from the U.S. Clinical Trials Registry. Second, all estimates of effect were of high quality and characterized by low levels of heterogeneity, strengthening the internal validity of this review. Third, although a Cochrane review has addressed this topic in 2017,30 we were able to provide readers with additional results for outcomes that have not been previously investigated because of a lack of data, such as AUC of pain analysis and analgesic consumption at 48 and 72 h postoperatively. Fourth, we presented 99% CI for all secondary outcomes to reduce the risk of type I error and multiple testing bias. Finally, the sensitivity analysis, by excluding the industry-sponsored trial, seems to have successfully eliminated bias, as the excluded data influenced the initial analysis toward a robust benefit favoring perineural liposomal bupivacaine.
Our review also comes with notable limitations. First, we investigated perineural liposomal bupivacaine across a variety of surgical procedures and block techniques. This could potentially limit the external validity of our results and limit their broad applicability; nonetheless, the low level of statistical heterogeneity disputes this possibility. Second, the choice of AUC for pain severity scores as a primary outcome limited our ability to perform additional ancillary analyses, such as meta-regression, to investigate the impact of potentially relevant covariates on the estimate of effect. In addition, AUC analysis may be more prone to bias given that a significant difference is more likely to be detected than in individual timepoint analysis. Nonetheless, analysis of individual timepoints was confirmatory of the findings. Third, variabilities in the analgesic regimens used in the included studies may have played a confounding effect. Fourth, we cannot exclude the possibility of publication bias, because we did not include unpublished negative trials or missing studies. Finally, owing to scarcity of data, we were unable to statistically evaluate clinically important long-term outcomes such as pain-related disability, persistent pain, opioid-dependence, and health-related quality of life.
Conclusions
Used perineurally in peripheral nerve blocks, liposomal bupivacaine provides a clinically unimportant improvement in the AUC of postoperative pain scores compared with nonliposomal bupivacaine. Furthermore, excluding an industry-sponsored trial rendered this benefit insignificant. We also found liposomal bupivacaine to be not different from nonliposomal bupivacaine for all other analgesic and functional outcomes. High-quality evidence does not support the use of perineural liposomal bupivacaine over nonliposomal bupivacaine for peripheral nerve blocks.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Laura Banfield, M.L.S., Ph.D. (Health Sciences Library, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada), for creating the search strategy for this meta-analysis.
Research Support
Support for this study was provided solely from institutional and/or departmental sources.
Competing Interests
Dr. Essandoh is a consultant for Boston Scientific (Marlborough, Massachusetts) and S4 Medical (Cleveland, Ohio). Dr. Weaver is a consultant for Medtronic (Dublin, Ireland). The remaining authors declare no competing interests.
References
1. Knudson RA, Dunlavy PW, Franko J, Raman SR, Kraemer SR: Effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine in colorectal surgery: A pragmatic nonsponsored prospective randomized double blinded trial in a community hospital. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016; 59:862–9
2. Ma P, Lloyd A, McGrath M, Shuchleib Cung A, Akusoba I, Jackson A, Swartz D, Boone K, Higa K: Efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine
versus bupivacaine in port site injections on postoperative pain within enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery program: A randomized clinical trial. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019; 15:1554–62
3. Motakef S, Wong WW, Ingargiola MJ, Nguyen D, Galdyn IA, Kim HY, Gupta SC: Liposomal bupivacaine in implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017; 5:e1559
4. Nadeau MH, Saraswat A, Vasko A, Elliott JO, Vasko SD: Bupivacaine
versus liposomal bupivacaine for postoperative pain control after augmentation mammaplasty: A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Aesthet Surg J. 2016; 36:NP47–52
5. Evans SKL, Abimbola O, Myers EM, Tarr ME: A novel injection technique for extended-release local anesthetic after posterior colporrhaphy and perineorrhaphy: A randomized controlled study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020[Epub ahead of print]
6. Propst K, O’Sullivan DM, Steinberg AC: Randomized double-blind trial of short-
versus long-acting analgesia at the sacrospinous ligament. Int Urogynecol J. 2019; 30:123–30
7. Barron KI, Lamvu GM, Schmidt RC, Fisk M, Blanton E, Patanwala I: Wound infiltration with extended-release
versus short-acting bupivacaine before laparoscopic hysterectomy: A randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017; 24:286–92
8. Iwanoff C, Salamon C: Liposomal bupivacaine
versus bupivacaine hydrochloride with lidocaine during midurethral sling placement: A randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019; 26:1133–8
9. Iero PT, Mulherin DR, Jensen O, Berry T, Danesi H, Razook SJ: A prospective, randomized, open-label study comparing an opioid-sparing postsurgical pain management protocol with and without liposomal bupivacaine for full-arch implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018; 33:1155–64
10. Glenn B, Drum M, Reader A, Fowler S, Nusstein J, Beck M: Does liposomal bupivacaine (Exparel) significantly reduce postoperative pain/numbness in symptomatic teeth with a diagnosis of necrosis? A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. J Endod. 2016; 42:1301–6
11. Bultema K, Fowler S, Drum M, Reader A, Nusstein J, Beck M: Pain reduction in untreated symptomatic irreversible pulpitis using liposomal bupivacaine (Exparel): A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. J Endod. 2016; 42:1707–12
12. Prabhu M, Clapp MA, McQuaid-Hanson E, Ona S, O’Donnell T, James K, Bateman BT, Wylie BJ, Barth WH Jr: Liposomal bupivacaine block at the time of cesarean delivery to decrease postoperative pain: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 132:70–8
13. Gorfine SR, Onel E, Patou G, Krivokapic ZV: Bupivacaine extended-release liposome injection for prolonged postsurgical analgesia in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011; 54:1552–9
14. Haas E, Onel E, Miller H, Ragupathi M, White PF: A double-blind, randomized, active-controlled study for post-hemorrhoidectomy pain management with liposome bupivacaine, a novel local analgesic formulation. Am Surg. 2012; 78:574–81
15. Johnson RL, Amundson AW, Abdel MP, Sviggum HP, Mabry TM, Mantilla CB, Schroeder DR, Pagnano MW, Kopp SL: Continuous posterior lumbar plexus nerve block
versus periarticular injection with ropivacaine or liposomal bupivacaine for total hip arthroplasty: A three-arm randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017; 99:1836–45
16. Perets I, Walsh JP, Mu BH, Yuen LC, Ashberg L, Battaglia MR, Domb BG: Intraoperative infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine
vs bupivacaine hydrochloride for pain management in primary total hip arthroplasty: A prospective randomized trial. J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33:441–6
17. Alter TH, Liss FE, Ilyas AM: A prospective randomized study comparing bupivacaine hydrochloride
versus bupivacaine liposome for pain management after distal radius fracture repair surgery. J Hand Surg Am. 2017; 42:1003–8
18. Dale EL, Kluemper CT, Cowart SJ, Jemison M, Kennedy JW, Gao L, Brzezienski MA, Rehm J: Bupivacaine extended-release liposomal injection
versus bupivacaine HCl for early postoperative pain control following wrist operations: A prospective, randomized control trial. J Hand Surg Am. 2020; 45:550.e1–8
19. Gatherwright J, Knackstedt RW, Ghaznavi AM, Bernard S, Schwarz G, Moreira A, Gurunluoglu R, Djohan R: Prospective, randomized, controlled comparison of bupivacaine
versus liposomal bupivacaine for pain management after unilateral delayed deep inferior epigastric perforator free flap reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018; 141:1327–30
20. Hutchins JL, Kesha R, Blanco F, Dunn T, Hochhalter R: Ultrasound-guided subcostal transversus abdominis plane blocks with liposomal bupivacaine
vs. non-liposomal bupivacaine for postoperative pain control after laparoscopic hand-assisted donor nephrectomy: A prospective randomised observer-blinded study. Anaesthesia. 2016; 71:930–7
21. Wong KA, Cabrera AG, Argiroff AL, Pechman DM, Parides MK, Vazzana JT, Moran-Atkin EM, Choi JJ, Camacho DR: Transversus abdominis plane block with liposomal bupivacaine and its effect on opiate use after weight loss surgery: A randomized controlled trial. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020; 16:886–93
22. Ha AY, Keane G, Parikh R, Odom E, Tao Y, Zhang L, Myckatyn TM, Guffey R: The analgesic effects of liposomal bupivacaine
versus bupivacaine hydrochloride administered as a transversus abdominis plane block after abdominally based autologous microvascular breast reconstruction: A prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019; 144:35–44
23. Hutchins J, Delaney D, Vogel RI, Ghebre RG, Downs LS Jr, Carson L, Mullany S, Teoh D, Geller MA: Ultrasound guided subcostal transversus abdominis plane (TAP) infiltration with liposomal bupivacaine for patients undergoing robotic assisted hysterectomy: A prospective randomized controlled study. Gynecol Oncol. 2015; 138:609–13
24. Gasanova I, Alexander J, Ogunnaike B, Hamid C, Rogers D, Minhajuddin A, Joshi GP: Transversus abdominis plane block
versus surgical site infiltration for pain management after open total abdominal hysterectomy. Anesth Analg. 2015; 121:1383–8
25. Hutchins J, Argenta P, Berg A, Habeck J, Kaizer A, Geller MA: Ultrasound-guided subcostal transversus abdominis plane block with liposomal bupivacaine compared to bupivacaine infiltration for patients undergoing robotic-assisted and laparoscopic hysterectomy: A prospective randomized study. J Pain Res. 2019; 12:2087–94
26. Bramlett K, Onel E, Viscusi ER, Jones K: A randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging study comparing wound infiltration of DepoFoam bupivacaine, an extended-release liposomal bupivacaine, to bupivacaine HCl for postsurgical analgesia in total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2012; 19:530–6
27. Abildgaard JT, Chung AS, Tokish JM, Hattrup SJ: Clinical efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine: A systematic review of prospective, randomized controlled trials in orthopaedic surgery. JBJS Rev. 2019; 7:e8
29. Ilfeld BM, Gabriel RA, Eisenach JC: Liposomal bupivacaine infiltration for knee arthroplasty: Significant analgesic benefits or just a bunch of fat? A
nesthesiology. 2018; 129:623–6
30. Hamilton TW, Athanassoglou V, Mellon S, Strickland LH, Trivella M, Murray D, Pandit HG: Liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 2:CD011419
31. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62:1006–12
32. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA; Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343:d5928
33. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, Schünemann HJ; GRADE Working Group: Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336:1049–51
34. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Meerpohl J, Dahm P, Schünemann HJ: GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64:383–94
35. Mont MA, Beaver WB, Dysart SH, Barrington JW, Del Gaizo DJ: Local infiltration analgesia with liposomal bupivacaine improves pain scores and reduces opioid use after total knee arthroplasty: Results of a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33:90–6
36. Ilfeld BM, Viscusi ER, Hadzic A, Minkowitz HS, Morren MD, Lookabaugh J, Joshi GP: Safety and side effect profile of liposome bupivacaine (Exparel) in peripheral nerve blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2015; 40:572–82
37. Breivik EK, Björnsson GA, Skovlund E: A comparison of pain rating scales by sampling from clinical trial data. Clin J Pain. 2000; 16:22–8
38. Thorlund K, Walter SD, Johnston BC, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH: Pooling health-related quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis-a tutorial and review of methods for enhancing interpretability. Res Synth Methods. 2011; 2:188–203
39. Canadian Pharmacists Association: Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties: The Canadian Drug Reference for Health Professionals , 45th edition. Ottawa, Canada, Canadian Pharmacists Assoc., 2010
40. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T: Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14:135
41. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.1.0. Hoboken, New Jersey, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011
42. Furukawa TA, Barbui C, Cipriani A, Brambilla P, Watanabe N: Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate results. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59:7–10
43. Moore A, McQuay H, Gavaghan D: Deriving dichotomous outcome measures from continuous data in randomised controlled trials of analgesics. Pain. 1996; 66:229–37
44. Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F, Chacón-Moscoso S: Effect-size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods. 2003; 8:448–67
45. Murad MH, Wang Z, Chu H, Lin L: When continuous outcomes are measured using different scales: Guide for meta-analysis and interpretation. BMJ. 2019; 364:k4817
46. DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7:177–88
47. Holm S: A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat. 1979; 6:65–70
48. Myles PS, Myles DB, Galagher W, Boyd D, Chew C, MacDonald N, Dennis A: Measuring acute postoperative pain using the visual analog scale: the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state. Br J Anaesth. 2017; 118:424–9
49. Cheung BW, Cartier LL, Russlie HQ, Sawchuk RJ: The application of sample pooling methods for determining AUC, AUMC and mean residence times in pharmacokinetic studies. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2005; 19:347–54
50. Abdallah FW, MacLean D, Madjdpour C, Cil T, Bhatia A, Brull R: Pectoralis and serratus fascial plane blocks each provide early analgesic benefits following ambulatory breast cancer surgery: A retrospective propensity-matched cohort study. Anesth Analg. 2017; 125:294–302
51. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997; 315:629–34
53. Premkumar A, Samady H, Slone H, Hash R, Karas S, Xerogeanes J: Liposomal bupivacaine for pain control after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective, double-blinded, randomized, positive-controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44:1680–6
54. Marino J, Scuderi G, Dowling O, Farquhar R, Freycinet B, Overdyk F: Periarticular knee injection with liposomal bupivacaine and continuous femoral nerve block for postoperative pain management after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34:495–500
55. Okoroha KR, Lynch JR, Keller RA, Korona J, Amato C, Rill B, Kolowich PA, Muh SJ: Liposomal bupivacaine
versus interscalene nerve block for pain control after shoulder arthroplasty: A prospective randomized trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016; 25:1742–8
56. Soberón JR Jr, Ericson-Neilsen W, Sisco-Wise LE, Gastañaduy M, Beck DE: Perineural liposomal bupivacaine for postoperative pain control in patients undergoing upper extremity orthopedic surgery: A prospective and randomized pilot study. Ochsner J. 2016; 16:436–42
57. Sabesan VJ, Shahriar R, Petersen-Fitts GR, Whaley JD, Bou-Akl T, Sweet M, Milia M: A prospective randomized controlled trial to identify the optimal postoperative pain management in shoulder arthroplasty: Liposomal bupivacaine
versus continuous interscalene catheter. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017; 26:1810–7
58. Namdari S, Nicholson T, Abboud J, Lazarus M, Steinberg D, Williams G: Interscalene block with and without intraoperative local infiltration with liposomal bupivacaine in shoulder arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100:1373–8
59. Namdari S, Nicholson T, Abboud J, Lazarus M, Steinberg D, Williams G: Randomized controlled trial of interscalene block compared with injectable liposomal bupivacaine in shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017; 99:550–6
60. Abildgaard JT, Lonergan KT, Tolan SJ, Kissenberth MJ, Hawkins RJ, Washburn R 3rd, Adams KJ, Long CD, Shealy EC, Motley JR, Tokish JM: Liposomal bupivacaine
versus indwelling interscalene nerve block for postoperative pain control in shoulder arthroplasty: A prospective randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017; 26:1175–81
61. Sethi PM, Brameier DT, Mandava NK, Miller SR: Liposomal bupivacaine reduces opiate consumption after rotator cuff repair in a randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28:819–27
62. McGraw-Tatum MA, Groover MT, George NE, Urse JS, Heh V: A prospective, randomized trial comparing liposomal bupivacaine
vs fascia iliaca compartment block for postoperative pain control in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32:2181–5
63. Okoroha KR, Keller RA, Marshall NE, Jung EK, Mehran N, Owashi E, Moutzouros V: Liposomal bupivacaine
versus femoral nerve block for pain control after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective randomized trial. Arthroscopy. 2016; 32:1838–45
64. Surdam JW, Licini DJ, Baynes NT, Arce BR: The use of Exparel (liposomal bupivacaine) to manage postoperative pain in unilateral total knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30:325–9
65. Talmo CT, Kent SE, Fredette AN, Anderson MC, Hassan MK, Mattingly DA: Prospective randomized trial comparing femoral nerve block with intraoperative local anesthetic injection of liposomal bupivacaine in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33:3474–8
66. Felling DR, Jackson MW, Ferraro J, Battaglia MA, Albright JJ, Wu J, Genord CK, Brockhaus KK, Bhave RA, McClure AM, Shanker BA, Cleary RK: Liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block
versus epidural analgesia in a colon and rectal surgery enhanced recovery pathway: A randomized clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018; 61:1196–204
67. Torgeson M, Kileny J, Pfeifer C, Narkiewicz L, Obi S: Conventional epidural
vs transversus abdominis plane block with liposomal bupivacaine: A randomized trial in colorectal surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2018; 227:78–83
68. Colibaseanu DT, Osagiede O, Merchea A, Ball CT, Bojaxhi E, Panchamia JK, Jacob AK, Kelley SR, Naessens JM, Larson DW: Randomized clinical trial of liposomal bupivacaine transverse abdominis plane block
versus intrathecal analgesia in colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2019; 106:692–9
70. Purcell RL, Brooks DI, Steelman TJ, Christensen DL, Dickens JF, Kent ML, McCabe MP, Anderson TD: Fascia iliaca blockade with the addition of liposomal bupivacaine
versus plain bupivacaine for perioperative pain management during hip arthroscopy: A double-blinded prospective randomized control trial. Arthroscopy. 2019; 35:2608–16
71. Vandepitte C, Kuroda M, Witvrouw R, Anne L, Bellemans J, Corten K, Vanelderen P, Mesotten D, Leunen I, Heylen M, Van Boxstael S, Golebiewski M, Van de Velde M, Knezevic NN, Hadzic A: Addition of liposome bupivacaine to bupivacaine HCl
versus bupivacaine HCl alone for interscalene brachial plexus block in patients having major shoulder surgery. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017; 42:334–41
72. Zhang L, Jiyong L, Chen Z: The postoperative analgesia effect of liposome bupivacaine ultrasound-guided PECS blockade after total mammectomy. J Pract Med. 2019; 35:3214–3217
77. Weksler B, Sullivan JL, Schumacher LY: Randomized trial of bupivacaine with epinephrine versus bupivacaine liposome suspension in patients undergoing minimally invasive lung resection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020[Epub ahead of print]
78. Xie D, Nicholson M, Azaiza M, Gheiler V, Lopez I, Nehrenz GM, Klopukh B, Bianco FJ, Perito P, Gheiler E: Effect of operative local anesthesia on postoperative pain outcomes of inflatable penile prosthesis: Prospective comparison of two medications. Int J Impot Res. 2018; 30:93–6
79. Alijanipour P, Tan TL, Matthews CN, Viola JR, Purtill JJ, Rothman RH, Parvizi J, Austin MS: Periarticular injection of liposomal bupivacaine offers no benefit over standard bupivacaine in total knee arthroplasty: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32:628–34
80. Amundson AW, Johnson RL, Abdel MP, Mantilla CB, Panchamia JK, Taunton MJ, Kralovec ME, Hebl JR, Schroeder DR, Pagnano MW, Kopp SL: A three-arm randomized clinical trial comparing continuous femoral plus single-injection sciatic peripheral nerve blocks
versus periarticular injection with ropivacaine or liposomal bupivacaine for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. A
nesthesiology. 2017; 126:1139–50
81. Hussain N, Grzywacz VP, Ferreri CA, Atrey A, Banfield L, Shaparin N, Vydyanathan A: Investigating the efficacy of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to local anesthesia in brachial plexus block: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017; 42:184–96
82. Abdallah FW, Brull R: Facilitatory effects of perineural dexmedetomidine on neuraxial and peripheral nerve block: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2013; 110:915–25
83. Albrecht E, Vorobeichik L, Jacot-Guillarmod A, Fournier N, Abdallah FW: Dexamethasone is superior to dexmedetomidine as a perineural adjunct for supraclavicular brachial plexus block: Systematic review and indirect meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2019; 128:543–54
84. Hussain N, Van den Langenbergh T, Sermer C, Fontes ML, Atrey A, Shaparin N, Sawyer TR, Vydyanathan A: Equivalent analgesic effectiveness between perineural and intravenous dexamethasone as adjuvants for peripheral nerve blockade: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2018; 65:194–206
85. Sun C, Zhang X, Song F, Zhao Z, Du R, Wu S, Ma Q, Cai X: Is continuous catheter adductor canal block better than single-shot canal adductor canal block in primary total knee arthroplasty?: A GRADE analysis of the evidence through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020; 99:e20320
86. Prabhakar A, Ward CT, Watson M, Sanford J, Fiza B, Moll V, Kaye RJ, Morgan Hall O, Cornett EM, Urman RD, Kaye AD: Liposomal bupivacaine and novel local anesthetic formulations. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2019; 33:425–32
88. Ilfeld BM: Liposome bupivacaine in peripheral nerve blocks and epidural injections to manage postoperative pain. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2013; 14:2421–31
89. Cao X, Pan F: Comparison of liposomal bupivacaine infiltration
versus interscalene nerve block for pain control in total shoulder arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized control trails. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96:e8079
90. Kolade O, Patel K, Ihejirika R, Press D, Friedlander S, Roberts T, Rokito AS, Virk MS: Efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine in shoulder surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28:1824–34
91. Ma TT, Wang YH, Jiang YF, Peng CB, Yan C, Liu ZG, Xu WX: Liposomal bupivacaine
versus traditional bupivacaine for pain control after total hip arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96:e7190
92. Ma J, Zhang W, Yao S: Liposomal bupivacaine infiltration
versus femoral nerve block for pain control in total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2016; 36(pt A):44–55
93. Raman S, Lin M, Krishnan N: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine in colorectal resections. J Drug Assess. 2018; 7:43–50
94. Sun H, Huang Z, Zhang Z, Liao W: A meta-analysis comparing liposomal bupivacaine and traditional periarticular injection for pain control after total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2019; 32:251–8
95. Wang K, Zhang HX: Liposomal bupivacaine
versus interscalene nerve block for pain control after total shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2017; 46:61–70
96. Yan Z, Chen Z, Ma C: Liposomal bupivacaine
versus interscalene nerve block for pain control after shoulder arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96:e7226
97. Zhang X, Yang Q, Zhang Z: The efficiency and safety of local liposomal bupivacaine infiltration for pain control in total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96:e8433
98. Schroer WC, Diesfeld PG, LeMarr AR, Morton DJ, Reedy ME: Does extended-release liposomal bupivacaine better control pain than bupivacaine after total knee arthroplasty (TKA)? A prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30(9 suppl):64–7
99. Dizdarevic A, Aviles B, Kosharskyy B, Kim SJ, Nolasco L, Kumar R, Corvini S, Cuevas E, Lockwood K, Nair S: Feasibility and efficacy trial comparing liposomal bupivacaine and bupivacaine mixture with bupivacaine only in pre-operative four compartments periarticular infiltration block for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: An assessor-blinded single-center randomized trial. J Clin Anesth. 2020; 60:53–4
100. Brummett CM, Norat MA, Palmisano JM, Lydic R: Perineural administration of dexmedetomidine in combination with bupivacaine enhances sensory and motor blockade in sciatic nerve block without inducing neurotoxicity in rat. A
nesthesiology. 2008; 109:502–11
101. Verlinde M, Hollmann MW, Stevens MF, Hermanns H, Werdehausen R, Lirk P: Local anesthetic-induced neurotoxicity. Int J Mol Sci. 2016; 17:339
102. Richard BM, Rickert DE, Newton PE, Ott LR, Haan D, Brubaker AN, Cole PI, Ross PE, Rebelatto MC, Nelson KG: Safety evaluation of EXPAREL (DepoFoam bupivacaine) administered by repeated subcutaneous injection in rabbits and dogs: Species comparison. J Drug Deliv. 2011; 2011:467429
Appendix 1. Search Strategy Based on Initial MEDLINE Search
- exparel.mp. (101)
- ((liposom* or depo*) adj5 bupiv?caine).mp. (608)
- 1 or 2 (615)
- su.fs. (1998623)
- ((post-operat* or postoperat* or post-surg* or post or analg* or surg*) adj5 pain*).mp. (93771)
- ((post-operat* or postoperat* or post-surg* or post or surg*) adj5 analg*).mp. (20124)
- 4 or 5 or 6 (2060618)
- 7 and 3 (439)
- remove duplicates from 8 (438)
Appendix 2. Elements of Outcomes Assessed for Rest Pain Scores
Appendix 3. Band Plot for Rest Pain Scores with 95% CI across 24, 48, and 72 h for Nonliposomal Local Anesthetic and Liposomal Bupivacaine
