Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
Efficacy and safety of liposomal bupivacaine versus bupivacaine for retrolaminar block for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared the analgesic effects and adverse effects of liposomal bupivacaine and bupivacaine in patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with retrolaminar block (RLB). The study evaluated the efficacy and safety of liposomal bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing PLIF.
methodsA total of 70 patients undergoing elective PLIF were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups: the liposomal bupivacaine group (LB group, n = 35) and the bupivacaine group (B group, n = 35), for RLB. The primary outcomes were postoperative 30-minute, 6-hour, 12-hour, 18-hour, 24-hour, 36-hour, 48-hour, and 72-hour static visual analog scale (VAS) scores and perioperative opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes included bupivacaine blood concentrations at 5 time points within 72 h after injection of the test drug, incidence of postoperative adverse events, Quality of Recovery-15 scores (QoR-15) of patients at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h postoperatively, length of postoperative hospitalization, and changes in IL-6 and IL-10 after 2 h, 24 h, and 72 h of administration of the intervention.
resultsCompared with B group, resting VAS in the LB group were significantly decreased at 18 h, 24 h, 36 h, 48 h, and 72 h postoperatively (P = 0.003, 0.022, 0.009, 0.001, and 0.000, respectively). The QoR-15 scores of the LB group at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h after surgery were significantly higher (P = 0.001, 0.009, and 0.001, respectively) compared with the B group. No significant differences were observed in opioid consumption, postoperative adverse events, length of postoperative hospitalization, and postoperative inflammatory factors at 72 h between the groups. The blood concentrations of bupivacaine in both groups did not exceed the toxicity threshold at 72 h postoperatively.
conclusionThe use of liposomal bupivacaine for ultrasound-guided RLB in PLIF patients did not reduce perioperative opioid consumption compared to bupivacaine. Howerve, liposomal bupivacaine did not increase complication rates and prolonged the duration of nerve block analgesia, which is safe and reliable in the postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing PLIF.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov. Identifier ChiCTR2400091488, 29 October 2024.
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.