ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Effect of Liposomal Bupivacaine in Peripheral Nerve Block Following Thoracoscopic Lung Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Liposomal bupivacaine in thoracic surgery: a comprehensive review of current evidence and clinical implications.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Liposomal Bupivacaine, Ropivacaine, and Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia for Adult Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Retraospective Cohort Study.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare liposomal bupivacaine (LB) with conventional local anesthetics (LAs) in peripheral nerve block following thoracoscopic lung surgery. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating LB and other LAs for postoperative analgesia were retrieved from databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Sciencefrom inception to December 2025. The primary outcome was resting Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 24 hours. Results: We included 9 RCTs with 930 patients. The LB had a lower resting VAS at 24 hours (mean difference [MD] = -0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.83 to -0.47). Similar results were shown in the resting VAS at 48 hours (MD = -0.45, 95% CI: -0.61 to -0.29), resting VAS at 72 hours (MD = -0.33, 95% CI: -0.56 to -0.10), movement VAS at 24 hours (MD = -0.60, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.45), movement VAS at 48 hours (MD = -0.46, 95% CI: -0.71 to -0.21; I2 = 96%), and movement VAS at 72 hours (MD = -0.60, 95% CI: -0.98 to -0.23). Additionally, LB reduced morphine consumption within 24 hours (MD = -2.68, 95% CI: -3.84 to -1.52) and morphine consumption within 72 hours (MD = -8.76, 95% CI: -16.13 to -1.38). However, there were no significant differences between LB and other LAs in morphine consumption within 48 hours and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Conclusion: Although LB produced statistically significant reductions in resting and movement pain scores at 24, 48, and 72 hours, as well as lower morphine consumption at 24 and 72 hours, the magnitude of these differences is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed for 48-hour morphine consumption or PONV. Limitation: The results showed many heterogeneity. There was a lack of data on long-term analgesia and functional outcomes.
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.