SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Impact of liposomal bupivacaine on subjective recovery quality after surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. 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.
- [Comparative observation of analgesic efficacy between liposomal bupivacaine and "cocktail" therapy following artificial intelligence-assisted direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty: A prospective randomized controlled study].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Trial
- Median effective concentration of liposomal bupivacaine for ultrasound-guided supra-inguinal fascia iliaca compartment block in older adults undergoing total hip arthroplasty: a dixon geometric up-and-down dose-finding study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Trial
- Liposomal Bupivacaine in Perioperative Analgesia: A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Economic Context.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The quality of recovery (QoR) is a multidimensional concept used to evaluate the restoration of physical and psychological functions after surgery. It is a key measure for assessing surgical efficacy, anesthetic modalities, and the effectiveness of perioperative interventions. Liposomal bupivacaine (LB), a long-acting local anesthetic recently introduced, is characterized by its sustained-release profile and prolonged analgesic effect. However, empirical findings regarding the impact of LB on the quality of postoperative recovery remain inconclusive. Methods: On 5 March 2025, we conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CNKI, and VIP databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of LB in postoperative recovery. Eligible studies compared postoperative recovery outcomes between patients receiving LB and those in control groups who did not receive LB. The primary outcome of interest was the QoR score measured 72 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included QoR scores at 24 and 48 h after surgery; pain scores at rest at 24, 48, and 72 h after surgery; incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV); cumulative morphine-equivalent opioid consumption within 72 h after surgery; and patient satisfaction. Results: This meta-analysis included 11 RCTs comprising a total of 1,357 patients. The findings indicate that the LB group showed a statistically significant improvement in overall QoR scores 72 h after surgery [standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20, 0.85; Conclusion: The use of LB was associated with improved QoR scores within 72 h after surgery, a reduced incidence of PONV, and decreased opioid consumption. These findings suggest that LB not only improves overall postoperative recovery but also mitigates associated adverse effects, thereby contributing to improved patient satisfaction and a more streamlined recovery trajectory. Nevertheless, further research is needed to assess its long-term efficacy and broader clinical applicability. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD420251003585].
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.