ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Liposomal bupivacaine in posterior spine surgery: A piece of the puzzle for postoperative pain.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Liposomal bupivacaine versus ropivacaine for surgical site infiltration in lumbar fusion: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Annals of medicine · 2026Trial
- Pediatric Anesthetic Management of a Patient With Warburg Micro Syndrome, a Rare Autosomal Recessive Genetic Disorder.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Dual Tunneled Epidural Wound Catheters for Postoperative Analgesia Following Posterior Spinal Fusion.Journal of medical cases · 2025Article
- Erector Spinae Plane Block With Liposomal Bupivacaine for Cervical Spine Surgery.Case reports in anesthesiology · 2025Article
- The Emerging Role of Liposomal Bupivacaine in Erector Spinae Plane Blocks for Post-Operative Pain Management in Spine Surgeries: A Narrative Review.Clinical pharmacology : advances and applications · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is a local analgesic that may be used at the time of surgery to limit postoperative pain around the surgical site. Its efficacy in decreasing pain, decreasing narcotic consumption, decreasing length of stay, and improving mobility is an area of intense research. The purpose of this study was to determine whether LB use was associated with improved patient-reported pain scores in the first 72 h following posterior spinal surgery, decreased postoperative narcotic need, and decreased length of stay. Methods: One hundred and five patients undergoing elective posterior cervical or lumbar surgery were included in retrospective analysis. Forty-eight patients who received LB intraoperatively were compared with a historical cohort of 56 patients who underwent similar procedures and did not receive postsurgical infiltration with local analgesia. The same pain medication protocol was utilized postoperatively. Results: Demographics, clinical characteristics, and total morphine milligram equivalents did not differ significantly between the groups. The treatment group averaged a decreased length of stay (1.85 days treatment, 2.68 days control, p = 0.057). Treatment with LB was associated with lower pain levels at 24 h (5.2 treatment, 6.4 control, p = 0.04) and 48-72 h (4.9 treatment, 6.6 control, p = 0.007) after surgery. Conclusions: LB improved patient perception of pain in the acute postoperative time period.Intraoperative LB injection, coupled with focused early mobilization efforts and multimodal pain control, may lead to improved patient-reported outcomes, shorter length of stay, and decreased risk of perioperative complications.
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.