SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2025
Efficacy and safety of co-administered bupivacaine and liposomal bupivacaine in interscalene brachial plexus block for shoulder surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rising incidence of shoulder surgeries highlights significant postoperative challenges, including moderate-to-severe pain, restricted mobility, and opioid-related adverse effects. While interscalene brachial plexus block (ISBPB) utilizing bupivacaine (B) provides effective analgesia, the clinical utility is constrained by a limited duration of action. Liposomal bupivacaine (LB), an extended-release formulation, offers a promising alternative for prolonging analgesia. However, current evidence regarding the comparative efficacy and safety profile remains conflicting. Consequently, a systematic evaluation of the co-administration of B and LB (B + LB) in ISBPB is essential to determine the role of LB in optimizing postoperative pain management for shoulder surgery patients.
methodsThis study included seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified through a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest databases. Primary outcomes were opioid consumption and multidimensional pain scores (average, resting, activity, and worst pain scores) on each postoperative day (POD). Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction and adverse events. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4, with continuous outcomes analyzed as mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs), and dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs). All effect estimates are reported with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsCompared to B alone or B with other adjuvant group, the B + LB group exhibited significantly lower opioid consumption on POD 3, and reduced average, resting, and activity pain scores on POD 2. Additionally, the B + LB group showed improvements in worst pain scores on PODs 1-4. Patient satisfaction and adverse event profiles were generally similar between the groups. While an increased risk of hoarseness was specifically observed in the B + LB group on POD 1, the incidence of respiratory complications was similar between the two groups.
conclusionB + LB during ISBPB for shoulder surgery provided superior pain relief on POD 2 and significantly reduced opioid consumption by POD 3, while being associated with an increase in hoarseness risk on POD 1 but comparable overall safety and patient satisfaction.
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.