ArticleWorld neurosurgery2020
Retrospective Assessment of the Use of Liposomal Bupivacaine in Lumbar Fusions in Immediate Postoperative Hospital Care.
Article in World neurosurgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- ED95 of Liposomal Bupivacaine for Postoperative Local Infiltration Analgesia in Women Undergoing Cesarean Section: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Trial
- Liposomal Bupivacaine in Perioperative Analgesia: A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Economic Context.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Liposomal bupivacaine in posterior spine surgery: A piece of the puzzle for postoperative pain.Journal of orthopaedicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLiposomal bupivacaine (LB) is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for administration into surgical sites for postsurgical analgesia. The liposomal formulation allows for sustained effects up to 72 hours.
methodsA retrospective study assessed patients undergoing lumbar interbody surgery. Visual analog scale pain scores and amount of opioids consumed were recorded at 12-hour intervals for 72 hours postoperatively, as were patterns of discharge and hospital length of stay (LOS).
resultsA total of 122 patients (97 LB vs. 25 control group) were reviewed. Median LOS was shorter in the LB cohort compared with controls (1.94 vs. 3.08 days, respectively; P = 0.0043). When assessing the percentage of discharges between groups at 12-hour intervals, there were significantly more discharges in the LB cohort at 36-48 hours (P = 0.0226), and no differences elsewhere. There was a decrease in intravenous opioids consumed at 48-60 hours in the LB cohort compared with controls (P = 0.0494), a difference not detected at other time points or with oral or total opioids. Mean visual analog scale scores were significantly higher in the LB cohort compared with controls at 0-12 hours (5.2 vs. 3.9, respectively; P = 0.0079), but insignificantly different subsequently up to 72 hours. The LB cohort and controls were not significantly different in total amount of opioids consumed, overall pain scores, or regarding how the opioid amount consumed or pain scores changed over time.
conclusionsThe use of LB in lumbar interbody fusion decreases patients' LOS but has little effect on reducing overall pain scores or opioid use in the 72-hour postoperative hospital period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.