ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Liposomal bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia after thoracoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. 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.
- Pain management strategies following thoracic surgery: best practices and innovations.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Liposomal Bupivacaine in Perioperative Analgesia: A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Economic Context.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Liposomal bupivacaine in thoracic surgery: a comprehensive review of current evidence and clinical implications.Frontiers in medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Thoracoscopic surgery has become the standard approach for many thoracic conditions. Despite its advantages, postoperative pain remains a significant cause of complications. Liposomal bupivacaine (LB), an extended-release local analgesic, has been introduced to enhance recovery. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compares the efficacy of LB Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for RCTs published from the inception of each database to November 2025. The risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 (RoB 1) tool, and the quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE system. The primary outcome was postoperative opioid consumption at 24 hours, measured in morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption at 48 hours, 72 hours, and during total hospitalization; pain scores assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) at 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, and over the entire hospitalization period; length of hospital stay (LOS); and time to first ambulation. Data were synthesized using Review Manager (RevMan; version 5.4). Results: Nine RCTs involving 915 patients were included. Compared to the control group, LB significantly reduced opioid consumption at 24 hours [mean difference (MD) =-1.83; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.42, -1.24; P<0.001], 48 hours (MD =-2.22; 95% CI: -2.78, -1.66; P<0.001), and 72 hours (MD =-1.73; 95% CI: -2.21, -1.25; P<0.001). Pain scores were also significantly lower in the LB group at 24 hours (MD =-0.99; 95% CI: -1.57, -0.41; P<0.001) and 48 hours (MD =-0.42; 95% CI: -0.77, -0.06; P=0.02), but the difference was not statistically significant at 72 hours (MD =-0.41; 95% CI: -0.95, 0.13; P=0.14). No significant differences were found in total opioid consumption, pain scores over the entire hospitalization period, LOS, or time to first ambulation. Conclusions: LB provides superior short-term analgesia but does not improve functional recovery outcomes compared to non-liposomal local anesthetics.
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.