ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Liposomal bupivacaine in thoracic surgery: a comprehensive review of current evidence and clinical implications.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is a prolonged-release formulation designed to provide postoperative analgesia for up to 72-96 h after a single injection. This comprehensive review evaluates the current evidence on LB in thoracic surgery, focusing on acute pain control, opioid consumption, hospital length of stay (LOS), functional recovery, comparative effectiveness across regional techniques, integration into Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) reduction, and safety/cost considerations. The core critical finding of this review is that although meta-analyses show statistically significant reductions in pain scores and opioid consumption with LB, the clinical significance of these reductions is questionable-for example, the opioid-sparing effect at 24 h (-1.83 MME) is far below the threshold generally considered clinically meaningful (10-15 MME). Results vary by block type; benefits are more consistent with serratus anterior, erector spinae, and paravertebral blocks, while intercostal nerve block data are mixed. LB appears most effective when incorporated into ERAS protocols, although the independent contribution of LB within these multimodal pathways remains difficult to isolate. Emerging evidence suggests LB may reduce CPSP incidence by 30-58%, but these findings are preliminary and require confirmation in larger studies with longer follow-up. Safety profiles are favorable, with peak plasma concentrations well below toxicity thresholds. Methodological limitations of the existing evidence include small sample sizes, lack of blinding, and and heterogeneity across studies. Future large-scale RCTs with long-term follow-up are warranted.
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.